V VENKATESH vs M/S PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED on 3 November 2026

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

R.A(S.A):101/2013

Mr.V.Venkatesh V/S M/s.Phoenix ARC Private Ltd 03/11/2026

Misc. Application 58/2026 (Modification) & Misc. Application 59/2026 (Pre-deposit Refund) In RA (SA) 101/2013

Learned Counsel for both sides are present.

IA 1576/2026 (Extension for cost compliance)

When the matter is taken up today, it is informed that the conditional orders dated 16.9.2026 and 23.10.2026 passed in IA 1576 of 2026 have been complied with. Therefore, IA 1576 of 2026 is allowed.

Misc. Application 58 of 2026 (Modification) & Misc. Application 59 of 2026 (Pre-deposit Refund)

When these applications are taken up today, Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Learned Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai, while disposing RA (SA) 101 of 2013 on 5.9.2017, directed the Respondent Bank to collect the pre-deposit amount available with the Registrar of this Tribunal and to deal with it in accordance with law. Against this order, the Petitioner filed WP No.52860 of 2017 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and this writ petition was dismissed. Against the dismissal of WP No.52860 of 2017, Petitioner filed SLP (C) No.36915 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it was also dismissed on 6.1.2026. In the said background, Miscellaneous Application 58 of 2026 and Misc. Application 59 of 2026 are filed for

(i) modifying the order dated 5.9.2017 passed by DRAT, Chennai with regard to directing the Respondent Bank to take the pre- deposit amount; and

(ii) for refund of this amount to the Petitioner.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

SA No. 259 of 2012 has been filed to challenge the sale notice and the auction sale held. On dismissal of the Securitization Application, Petitioner filed RA (SA) 101 of 2013.

Learned Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai negatived the grounds raised by the Petitioner with regard to challenge to the sale notice and sale held. It was observed that the property was sold according to market value and that Petitioner was given opportunity of full payment of Rs.44.00 lakhs prior to auction sale but he failed to utilize it. Ultimately, Respondent Bank was given the direction to collect the pre-deposit amount and deal with it according to law. Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submitted that the pre-deposit amount is not yet withdrawn and is still available with the Registrar, DRAT, Chennai.

Admittedly, against the order passed by this Tribunal on 5.9.2017 in RA (SA) 101 of 2013, Petitioner filed WP No.52860 of 2017 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, SLP (C) No.36915 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. These proceedings ended in dismissal, meaning thereby, the order of this Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is no doubt that pre-deposit is made for entertaining the appeal and Appellant is entitled for getting the pre-deposit amount back, unless it has been attached under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or under any other proceedings by any other court. That is not the case here.

However, this Tribunal is of the view that when the order of this Tribunal is confirmed in its entirety by both the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the prayer for modification of the order and refund of pre-deposit cannot be entertained and that this remedy should have been raised and secured by the Petitioner either before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

In this view of the matter, Miscellaneous Applications 58 of 2026 (Modification) and 59 of 2026 (Pre-deposit Refund) are dismissed.

Sd/-

Chairperson