High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety which is against the mandatory requirement of the statutory provision as contained in Section 21 of RDBA Act, 1993.

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK PVT. LIMITED

VERSUS

AMBUJ A. KASLIWAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.21555 of 2019), Decided On February 16, 2021

JUDGES: S. A. BOBDE, A. S. BOPANNA & V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN JJ.

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court can relax the condition of pre-deposit of debt due to entire extent under Section 21 of  Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 ( hereinafter referred as RDBA, 1993)?

HELD:

The Supreme Court with regard to the issue at hand observed that the High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety, nor it can exercise discretion which is against the mandatory requirement of the statutory provision as contained in Section 21 of RDBA Act, 1993. The Supreme Court further states that in all cases fifty per cent of the decretal amount i.e. 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 twenty­five per cent of the debt due would be permissible, but not entire waiver. Therefore, the Supreme Court said that any waiver of pre­deposit to the entire extent would be against the statutory provisions and, therefore, not sustainable in law.