Bombay High Court
BABAR AGRO PRODUCTSversusUNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the additional deposit of Rs. 40 lakh together with the existing Rs. 37.5 lakh constitutes sufficient pre‑deposit under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation Act.
Summary
The petitioner, a borrower, filed a writ petition seeking urgent interim relief before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) but was unable to proceed without a waiver of the pre‑deposit requirement. The petitioner had already deposited Rs. 37.5 lakh as 25% pre‑deposit, and the DRAT had listed the matter for further hearing. The petitioner offered to deposit an additional Rs. 40 lakh to satisfy the pre‑deposit condition, arguing that the total would constitute a substantial deposit under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation Act. The Court held that the combined amount of Rs. 77.5 lakh satisfies the pre‑deposit requirement and directed the petitioner to make the additional deposit within a week. Consequently, the Court ordered the DRAT to treat the total deposit as sufficient and to consider the pending interim application on its merits, while keeping all parties' rights open. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner must deposit additional funds to meet the pre‑deposit requirement under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
- Whether the High Court can direct the amount of pre‑deposit and order its deposit to facilitate interim relief before the DRAT.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pre‑deposit
- DRAT
- Securitisation Act
- interim relief
- waiver
- debt recovery
- secured creditor
- writ petition
Judgment
16_WP_11539_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11539 OF 2026
M/s. Babar Agro Products … Petitioner
vs.
Union Bank of India and others … Respondents
Mr. Aayush Kothari a/w. Mr. Darshan J. Solanki for petitioner.
Mr. Anup Khaitan a/w. Mr. Harsh Gutka, Mr. Aayush Khanwilkar and
Ms.Akshita Rathudi for respondent No.1 – bank.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
. The petitioner (borrower) has filed the present writ petition,
raising a grievance that its application for waiver of pre-deposit is
pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
(DRAT) in an appeal filed by the petitioner. Notice was issued in the
said application on 24.08.2026 and the next date of listing is
30.09.2026.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner desires to press for urgent
interim reliefs before the DRAT. But, unless the application for waiver
of pre-deposit is ordered, the petitioner will not be able to press for
urgent interim reliefs.
3. Respondent No.1 – bank (secured creditor) is represented by
counsel as advance notice was given. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, being
co-borrowers, are proforma respondents. Issuance of notice to the
said respondents is dispensed with.
Digitally signed
PRIYA
by PRIYA
KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
2026.09.11 1/3
10:35:32 +0530
16_WP_11539_26.doc
4. It is brought to our notice that in an earlier round, when the
petitioner had filed an appeal before the DRAT, an amount of
₹ 37,50,000 was deposited with the DRAT towards 25% of amount
due as pre-deposit. The appeal was partly allowed and the matter
was remanded to the DRT. It is brought to our notice that the said
amount is lying in deposit with the DRAT.
5. It is submitted that with passage of time, respondent No.1 –
bank would claim that 25% of the amount as on today, has increased
and in that context, the petitioner is ready to deposit further amount
before the DRAT, so that the aspect of pre-deposit is taken care of and
the petitioner can pursue the prayer for urgent interim reliefs.
6. On instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner is ready
to deposit a further amount of ₹ 40 lakhs before the DRAT within
two weeks from today.
7. We are of the opinion that adding the said amount of ₹ 40
lakhs to the already deposited amount of ₹ 37,50,000, it can be said
that substantial pre-deposit is being ensured by the petitioner.
8. Although the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1
may not have instructions to concede to the aforesaid position, we
are of the opinion that depositing further amount of ₹ 40 lakhs by
the petitioner before the DRAT, should suffice towards pre-deposit,
under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(Securitisation Act).
2/3
16_WP_11539_26.doc
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in following terms:
(a) The petitioner shall deposit further amount of ₹ 40 lakhs with
the DRAT within one week from today;
(b) Upon the petitioner depositing the aforesaid amount and taking
it together with the amount of ₹ 37,50,000 lying in deposit with
the DRAT, the same shall be treated as sufficient amount
towards pre-deposit, in terms of proviso to Section 18(1) of the
Securitisation Act;
(c) Thereupon, the DRAT shall take Interim Application (Diary)
No.1461 of 2026 in Miscellaneous Appeal (Diary) No.1460 of
2026, for consideration and orders urgently.
10. In view of the above, Interim Application No.520 of 2026 (for
waiver of pre-deposit) filed by the petitioner in the pending appeal,
stands disposed of.
11. Although the next date before the DRAT is 30.09.2026, upon
the deposit of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner, liberty is
reserved to the DRAT for advancing the date for consideration of the
application for interim reliefs, which shall be considered on its own
merits. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the
matter. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
12. Writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
3/3
Checking your session…