Pre-Deposit For Filing Appeals Before DRAT Is A Mandatory Requirement: Supreme Court
4 years, 1 month ago

Pre-Deposit For Filing Appeals Before DRAT Is A Mandatory Requirement: Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court observed that entire waiver of pre-­deposit for filing appeal before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, is impermissible.In all cases fifty per cent of the decretal amount i.e. The Supreme Court observed that entire waiver of pre-­deposit for filing appeal before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, is impermissible. the debt due is to be deposited before the DRAT as a mandatory requirement, but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded the deposit of at least twenty-five per cent of the debt due would be permissible, but not entire waiver, the bench comprising CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian said. the debt due is to be deposited before the DRAT as a mandatory requirement, but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded the deposit of at least twenty-five per cent of the debt due would be permissible, but not entire waiver.

Supreme Court Appeal Court Cases Debt Tribunal Cent Waiver Section 21 Entire Drat Fifty Per Cent Entire Waiver  entire  requirement  filing  mandatory  drat  court  cent  tribunal  predeposit  cases  debt  twentyfive  appeal  waiver  appeals  supreme

History of this topic

Appeal Can't Be Dismissed Due To Non-Payment Of Pre-Deposit If Department's Portal Acknowledges Compliance: Bombay High Court
4 months, 1 week ago

Appeal Can't Be Dismissed Due To Non-Payment Of Pre-Deposit If Department's Portal Acknowledges Compliance: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

Observing that provisional acknowledgement automatically generated on Department portal shows that the requisite pre-deposit has been made, the Bombay High Court held that the Assessee had duly complied with the necessary pre-deposit required u/s 107 of the CGST Act. The Division Bench of Justice M.S Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that in a similar matter in Bytedance Technology Pvt …

Taxpayers Can't Seek Writ Remedy By Bypassing Statutory Requirements Of Pre-Deposit: Bombay High Court
4 months, 1 week ago

Taxpayers Can't Seek Writ Remedy By Bypassing Statutory Requirements Of Pre-Deposit: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court held that circumstances in which the appeals require some percentage of the demanded tax to be pre-deposited, do not render the appellate remedies any less efficacious. Facts of the case: The Petitioner/ Assessee approached the High Court challenging the show cause notices demanding goods & services tax, to the extent they pertain to service tax demands …

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Petition Challenging SARFAESI Condition Of Pre-deposit To Appeal Before DRAT
9 months ago

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Petition Challenging SARFAESI Condition Of Pre-deposit To Appeal Before DRAT

Live Law  

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to issue notice in a petition filed by a Company Director challenging the validity of the condition of 50% pre-deposit for an appeal to DRAT under S. 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The main contention of the petitioner was that the provisos to the S. 18 impose the condition of depositing either 50% of …

Borrower Has To Pre-deposit 50% Of Which Amount In Appeal Before DRAT U/S 18 SARFAESI Act? Supreme Court Explains
2 years, 2 months ago

Borrower Has To Pre-deposit 50% Of Which Amount In Appeal Before DRAT U/S 18 SARFAESI Act? Supreme Court Explains

Live Law  

While calculating the amount to be deposited as predeposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 50% of which amount the borrower is required to deposit as pre-deposit? The bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna held as follows: Whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken …

Supreme Court Deprecates HC Practice Of Entertaining Writ Petitions Filed In SARFAESI Matters Without Exhausting Alternative Remedy
2 years, 4 months ago

Supreme Court Deprecates HC Practice Of Entertaining Writ Petitions Filed In SARFAESI Matters Without Exhausting Alternative Remedy

Live Law  

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petitions filed in SARFAESI matters without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy.In this case, the Telangana High Court set aside the e-auction sale held by the Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on. In this context, the bench comprising …

RERA ACT- Inconvenience In Making Pre-Deposits Not An Onerous Circumstance Warranting Relaxation Of A Statutory Mandate: Punjab And Haryana High Court
3 years, 2 months ago

RERA ACT- Inconvenience In Making Pre-Deposits Not An Onerous Circumstance Warranting Relaxation Of A Statutory Mandate: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Live Law  

Mere hardship in making pre-deposits which include diverting funds is not an arduous circumstance in any manner and does not necessitate waiver of a statutory mandate, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held. In a case about a batch of petitions filed by several real estate developers against orders passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority involving common …

Disputes Which Are To Be Adjudicated By DRTs Are Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Overrules 2012 Delhi HC Judgment
4 years, 3 months ago

Disputes Which Are To Be Adjudicated By DRTs Are Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Overrules 2012 Delhi HC Judgment

Live Law  

Overruling a Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court has observed that the disputes which are to be adjudicated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the DRT Act are non-arbitrable.To hold that the claims of banks and financial institutions covered under the DRT Act are arbitrable would deprive and deny these institutions of the specific rights including …

DRAT Cannot Entertain An Appeal U/s 18 SARFAESI Act Without Insisting On Pre- Deposit: SC [Read Judgment]
5 years ago

DRAT Cannot Entertain An Appeal U/s 18 SARFAESI Act Without Insisting On Pre- Deposit: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court has observed that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, without insisting on pre­-deposit. The bench of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court that held that no. The …

Appellate Authority Cannot Override Mandatory Statutory Requirements Of Pre-Deposit To Maintain Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]
5 years, 6 months ago

Appellate Authority Cannot Override Mandatory Statutory Requirements Of Pre-Deposit To Maintain Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

While upholding Section 62 of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, the Supreme Court observed that the Appellate Authority cannot override statutory requirement of pre-deposit when the statute mandates that no appeal can be entertained unless such requirement is satisfied.Section 62 of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 deals with Appeal Jurisdiction of the First Appellate authority. While upholding Section 62 …

DRTs Not Barred From Deciding Jurisdictional Issues As 'Preliminary Issues', Says Gujarat HC [Read Judgment]
5 years, 6 months ago

DRTs Not Barred From Deciding Jurisdictional Issues As 'Preliminary Issues', Says Gujarat HC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Gujarat High Court has held that the Debt Recovery Tribunals are not barred from deciding a 'preliminary issue' if it is one which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the application.The bench comprising of Justice Harsha Devani and Justice Vireshkumar B. Mayani was considering a petition seeking …

Vijay Mallya Bought Ferrari 246 GTS; But Made No Deposit Before DRAT; Karnataka HC Dismisses His Plea Seeking Restoration Of Appeal Before DRAT [Read Order]
6 years, 5 months ago

Vijay Mallya Bought Ferrari 246 GTS; But Made No Deposit Before DRAT; Karnataka HC Dismisses His Plea Seeking Restoration Of Appeal Before DRAT [Read Order]

Live Law  

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed Vijay Mallya’s plea seeking restoration of his appeal filed before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal that had dismissed his appeal as he did not deposit a sum of Rs 3,101 crore within prescribed time.The bench comprising Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna S. Dixit observed that the 2016 amendment to Section 21 of …

Bombay HC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 129E Of Customs Act [Read Judgment]
7 years, 9 months ago

Bombay HC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 129E Of Customs Act [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 129 E of the Indian Customs Act, 1962, that makes pre-deposit mandatory for filing an appeal before the tribunal or the Commissioner concerned.A bench of Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice GS Kulkarni pronounced this judgment on Monday, two weeks after it was reserved.Case BackgroundThe petitioners, Haresh Vora. The Bombay …

Borrower Can Prefer Appeal To DRT Even If Mortgaged Property Belongs To Guarantor: Chhattisgarh HC [Read Judgment]
8 years ago

Borrower Can Prefer Appeal To DRT Even If Mortgaged Property Belongs To Guarantor: Chhattisgarh HC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

It is nowhere provided that when secured asset belongs to the guarantor, only the guarantor can prefer an appeal and not the borrower, the court said.The Chhattisgarh High Court, in Manik Mehta vs. UCO Bank, has observed that even when the secured asset belongs to the guarantor, the borrower can also prefer an appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal.In the …

Appeal Before DRT Maintainable Even If Amount Involved Is Less Than Rs 10 Lakh: SC [Read Judgment]
8 years, 4 months ago

Appeal Before DRT Maintainable Even If Amount Involved Is Less Than Rs 10 Lakh: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Mukesh Jain, has held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as per Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, even if the amount involved is less than Rs 10 lakh.A bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave …

Appeal Before DRT Maintainable Even If Amount Involved Is Less Than Rs 10 Lakh: SC [Read Judgment]
8 years, 4 months ago

Appeal Before DRT Maintainable Even If Amount Involved Is Less Than Rs 10 Lakh: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Mukesh Jain, has held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as per Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, even if the amount involved is less than Rs 10 lakh.A bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave …

Partial deposit before DRAT under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act refundable, reiterates SC [Read Judgment]
8 years, 6 months ago

Partial deposit before DRAT under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act refundable, reiterates SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

Reiterating the dictum laid down in in Axis bank vs. SBS Organics Private Limited, the Supreme Court in KUMAR ALUMINIUM LTD. VS. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA has set aside a Delhi High Court Judgment which had refused to interfere with DRAT order which turned down the prayer for refund of the amount deposited in compliance of the requirement of the …

Partial Deposit before DRAT is neither a secured asset, nor a secured debt; It is refundable to the appellant after disposal of Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]
8 years, 11 months ago

Partial Deposit before DRAT is neither a secured asset, nor a secured debt; It is refundable to the appellant after disposal of Appeal: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court in Axis bank vs. SBS Organics Private Limited has held that the partial deposit before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal as a pre-condition for considering the appeal on merits in terms of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is neither a secured asset, nor a. The …

Discover Related