Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NO.8258  OF 2016

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.34859 of 2014)

KUMAR ALUMINIUM LTD .....APPELLANT  VERSUS

ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY  INDIA LTD AND ANR ....RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

Kurian, J.

Leave granted.  The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment

dated 19.8.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3896 of 2013.  

As  per  the  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Debt Recovery  Appellate  Tribunal,  Delhi  (for  short,  the 'DRAT').  The  DRAT  had  turned  down  the  prayer  of  the appellant  for  refund  of  the  amount  deposited  in compliance of the requirement of the second proviso to section 18(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial  Assets  and  Enforcement  of  Security  Interest Act, 2002, for maintaining an appeal.   

This  Court has  considered a  similar issue  in the case  of  Axis  Bank  vs.  SBS  Organics  Private  Limited  &

Page 2

2

Anr., in Civil Appeal No.4379 of 2016 and held as under : “22. The Appeal under section 18 of the Act is permissible only against the order passed by the DRT under section 17 of the Act. Under section 17, the scope of enquiry is limited to the steps taken  under  section  13(4)  against  the  secured assets. The partial deposit before the DRAT as a pre-condition  for  considering  the  appeal  on merits in terms of section 18 of the Act, is not a secured asset. It is not a secured debt either, since the borrower or the aggrieved person has not  created  any  security  interest  on  such pre-deposit in favour of the secured creditor. If that be so, on disposal of the appeal, either on merits  or  on  withdrawal,  or  on  being  rendered infructuous,  in  case,  the  appellant  makes  a prayer for refund of the pre-deposit, the same has to be allowed and the pre-deposit has to be returned to the appellant, unless the Appellate Tribunal, on the request of the secured creditor but  with  the  consent  of  the  depositors,  had already appropriated the pre-deposit towards the liability of the borrower, or with the consent, had adjusted the amount towards the dues, or if there be any attachment on the pre-deposit in any proceedings under section 13(10) of the Act read with  Rule  11  of  the  Security  Interest (Enforcement)  Rules,  2002,  or  if  there  be  any attachment  in  any  other  proceedings  known  to law.”  

Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order  of  the  DRAT  impugned  before  the  High  Court  and

Page 3

3

remit the matter to DRAT for consideration afresh.  Liberty  is  given  to  all  parties  to  raise  all

contentions available to them before  the DRAT which may pass fresh orders in accordance with law.  

The parties before this Court shall appear before the  Debt  Recovery  Appellate  Tribunal,  Delhi, on 3.10.2016.  

...................J [KURIAN JOSEPH]

......................J [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 23, 2016.