Jay Jagannath Castings Private Limited And Another vs Uco Bank And Others

The present revisional application is directed against orders dated July 1, 2017 and April 2, 2018, respectively refusing the prayer of the petitioners for

adjustment of prior payments from the pre-deposit as contemplated in Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and dismissing the appeal for non payment of the entire amount of 25% by the petitioners as directed by

the appellate forum.

The petitioners argue that the pre-deposit as contemplated under the said section has to be construed by given credit to amounts which have already

been paid/recovered pursuant to the claim of the creditors. On this aspect, the petitioners cite a judgement of the Supreme Court, being PARSN

Medical Plants Private Limited and Another Versus Indian Bank and Others reported in (2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 253 as well a judgement

of the Madras High Court, being Indian Bank Asset Recovery Management Branch rep.

By its Authorised Officer and Chief Manager S. Arulselvan and Indian Bank Vs. Hamosons Apparels Private Ltd. rep.By its Managing Partner Mr.

Abdul Razaq Osman and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal reported in MANU/TN/1325/2008, as well as two other judgments, being Gopal Ji

Gupta Vs. Debts 2 Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Others reported in AIR 2013 All 175 and Poonam Manshani Vs. J and K Bank Ltd. and Anr.

reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 28 (D.B.).

Although the judgment of the Supreme Court does not seem to have decided any ratio on the relevant issue and that of the Madras High Court seems

to be obiter as far as such issue is concerned on the first blush, the judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court are germane and

directly relevant to the issue. In both such judgments it was indicated that prior payments/recovered amounts ought to be gone into while construing

the pre-deposit as contemplated in Section 18 of the said Act.

As such, the petitioners have a triable question to be decided in the revisional application. Accordingly, the petitioners will serve copies of C. O. No.

839 of 2018 on the opposite parties as well as on the learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties in the court below intimating them that the

matter will appear as a “specially fixed matterâ€​ on May 15, 2018.

The petitioner will file an affidavit-of-service on the next date of hearing. The opposite parties are restrained from taking steps for confirmation of sale

in respect of the property in dispute in the instant matter till May 18, 2018 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.