Shanta Arora vs Authorised Officer, Bank Of Baroda. And Ors

The only point which this Tribunal is to decide is the consequence the non-compliance of the requirement of pre- deposit for the entertainment of this appeal filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the DRT in appellant's Securitisation Application (S.A.) which was filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the measures initiated by the respondent bank under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of her residential property in Panchkula which she had allegedly mortgaged in favour of the respondent bank to secure the repayment of loan granted the proprietorship Firm of her son-in-law, respondent no.4 herein, Rakesh Gulati by the name of R.R. Enterprises, respondent no.3 and also for the loan obtained by the brother of respondent no.3 in the name of his Firm. Repayment of the loans was secured by mortgaged of the appellant's house as well as some shops owned by respondents 3 and 6. The appellant's grievance before the DRT was that her son- in-law had duped her into mortgaging her house for repayment of the loan of Rs. six crores obtained by him and his brother.

The appellant wanted benefit of the sale proceeds of those mortgaged shops while considering the question as to whether the appellant has complied with the direction of making of pre- deposit of the minimum amount of 25% of the debt in dispute given by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.10.2014.

Vide impugned order the DRT had granted interim protection against her dispossession from the mortgaged house in question subject her depositing with the respondent bank Rs. 2.39 crores.

The appellant had challenged the order dated 16.10.2014 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and there in her writ petition (being CWP No. 24934/2014) a plea was raised that the appellant was entitled to get the credit of sale proceeds of Rs. 1.25 crores recovered from sale of the other mortgaged properties (which appear to have been sold during the pendency of this litigation). However, the High Court rejected that plea while maintaining the order of this Tribunal. Despite rejection of that plea by the High Court the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted before this Tribunal that the appellant is still entitled to the credit of amount of sale proceeds of other mortgaged shops in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Shrishti Arogyadham Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank

& Anr." [MANU/DE/4444/2018]. This submission, however, cannot be accepted since Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High has already rejected this plea of the appellant and this Tribunal cannot pass any order in the teeth of that order.

The appellant having not made the mandatory pre-deposit this appeal is dismissed as not entertainable because of non- compliance of the requirement of pre-deposit.