Published: · Source checked:
Calling an appealed order procedural did not secure complete waiver of SARFAESI pre-deposit in Jiffy Realtors v. Indian Overseas Bank. On 14 October 2026, DRAT Delhi required compliance with Section 18, reduced the deposit to 35% of the specified sale-notice amount, and left the connected appeals for later arguments. The order decided deposit applications, not the underlying auction challenges. Official common order, paragraphs 15–18.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi |
| Chairperson | Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain |
| Order date | ; reserved 7 July 2026 |
| Proceedings | Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 147, 148 and 151 of 2026 |
| Originating forum | DRT-III, Delhi |
| Challenged orders | 28 April and 8 May 2026, concerning production/addition of documents in the underlying securitisation applications |
| Decision under review here | Common disposal of the pre-deposit waiver applications |
| Direction | Each appellant to deposit 35% of ₹312,45,02,617 within four weeks from the order |
| Further listing recorded | 8 January 2027 for arguments; this is the listing stated in the order, not confirmation of what later occurred |
This note analyses the order as delivered. It does not establish whether the deposit was subsequently made, the direction was varied, or a later challenge was filed.
Why document-production orders generated a deposit dispute
The connected appellants had mortgaged properties to secure a term loan to Era Infra Engineering Limited. Their securitisation applications challenged enforcement steps, including the demand, possession and sale notices. Within those proceedings, they sought disclosure or production of auction-related documents and permission to place additional documents on record. DRT rejected those requests in the April and May 2026 orders. Order, paragraphs 1–5.1.
The appellants argued that their miscellaneous appeals attacked procedural decisions rather than a final determination of debt or substantive liability. On that basis, they sought complete waiver of the pre-deposit required for entertaining their appeals. The bank and auction purchaser opposed that approach. Those submissions explain the issue; they should not be mistaken for findings that the disputed documents were unnecessary or that the auction was valid. Order, paragraphs 5–11.
DRAT rejected the proposed distinction for these appeals. Paragraph 15 states that the pre-deposit requirement applied even when an appeal challenged an interlocutory order. The absence of a final debt determination did not, in its reasoning, make complete waiver available. Order, paragraph 15.
The statutory threshold and the discretionary reduction were separate questions
The tribunal set out Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. For a borrower within the provision, the second proviso requires deposit of 50% of the debt due as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by DRT, whichever is less. The third proviso permits a reduction, for recorded reasons, to no less than 25%. Order, paragraph 12.
That framework contains two decisions which should not be collapsed:
- Whether complete waiver was available: DRAT rejected the appellants' attempt to avoid the statutory threshold by characterising their appeals as procedural.
- What reduction should be allowed: after considering the circumstances, it fixed the deposit at 35%, rather than the 25% sought by the appellants or the 50% urged by the respondents. Order, paragraphs 15–18.
The 35% figure is the result in this record. It is not a standard rate, an automatic hardship concession or a replacement for the statutory discretion. The requirement is also framed by the statutory definition of borrower: the tribunal referred to Section 2(f), which includes persons who give a guarantee or create a mortgage or pledge to secure financial assistance. This note does not extend the borrower-specific deposit requirement to every third-party appellant. Order, paragraph 12.
Why DRAT used the later sale-notice amount
The figures mattered. The order recorded a demand notice of 13 April 2023 claiming ₹149,83,93,853. It then addressed the later sale notice dated 26 September 2023, stating ₹312,45,02,617. The appellants' underlying applications challenged that sale notice as well as the demand and possession notices. Order, paragraphs 13.1–14.
DRAT therefore selected ₹312,45,02,617 as the base for the deposit direction. Its reasoning linked the chosen amount to the enforcement measures actually challenged in the securitisation applications. Paragraph 18 directed each appellant to deposit 35% of that amount within four weeks. The note does not multiply that direction by the number of appeals, because the source does not state that each of the eight dockets attracts a separate cumulative payment. Order, paragraphs 16–18.
This is a deposit calculation recorded in the order. It is not a final recovery decree or a statement of the current outstanding balance. Treating the deposit base as an adjudicated present debt would go beyond what was decided.
The resolution-plan argument did not resolve the deposit application in the appellants' favour
The appellants also relied on the principal borrower's insolvency resolution, restructuring and no-dues position to argue that no qualifying debt remained. DRAT rejected automatic discharge of the appellants on that basis in its deposit analysis. Order, paragraph 15.1.
Care is needed with the order's terminology. Its earlier reasoning discusses guarantor liability, while paragraph 18 describes the appellants as mortgagors only. The source-supported result is that these appellants did not obtain complete waiver and were given a reduced deposit direction. It would be unsafe to use the note as a substitute for examining a particular party's mortgage, guarantee, resolution plan and release terms in another case.
Practical use: distinguish the application from the appeal
For a practitioner assessing this order, three separate records matter: the procedural decision under appeal, the broader relief in the securitisation application, and the exact deposit direction. Here, the miscellaneous appeals concerned document-related orders, but the underlying applications also attacked enforcement and sale measures. DRAT's choice of deposit base followed that wider relief. Order, paragraphs 3–5, 14 and 16.
The operative order disposed of the waiver applications and listed the appeals for arguments. It did not finally decide whether the additional documents should be admitted, whether the auction should be set aside, or the ultimate extent of each appellant's liability. Order, paragraph 18 and concluding listing direction.
Questions arising from the order
Did DRAT dismiss the eight appeals on their merits?
No. The common order decided pre-deposit applications and recorded a later argument date. The merits of the appeals were not finally disposed of in this order. Paragraph 18 and final direction.
Was the deposit reduced to the statutory minimum of 25%?
No. The appellants sought that reduction, but the tribunal directed 35% on the stated base. The result demonstrates discretion within the framework described by the tribunal; it does not promise the same reduction in another case. Paragraphs 17–18.
Did the order require every appellant, including an unrelated third party, to deposit?
The direction applied to the appellants before DRAT, who had provided mortgage security. Section 18's proviso, as reproduced in the order, concerns the borrower, and Section 2(f) gives that term an extended meaning. The note makes no universal deposit claim about every person aggrieved by a DRT order. Paragraphs 12 and 18.
Primary source and related reading
Read the official DRAT Delhi common order dated 14 October 2026, beginning with Miscellaneous Appeal 124/2026, especially paragraphs 12–18. The statutory text was cross-checked in the existing primary-text corpus. Later treatment has not been exhaustively verified; this is a dated order analysis rather than a comprehensive current-law guide.
For a separate question about realised recoveries, see DRAT Delhi's cancelled-auction refund decision.