Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

DRAT Upholds DRT’s Conditional Interim Order Requiring ₹20 Lakh Deposit, Dismisses Appeal [Read Order]

The tribunal held that the condition was a lenient protection and found no illegality, noting her claim of being neither borrower nor guarantor would be decided at the final hearing.

Gopika V
DRAT Upholds DRT’s Conditional Interim Order Requiring ₹20 Lakh Deposit, Dismisses Appeal [Read Order]
X

The Debt RecoveryAppellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata, has dismissed an appeal and upheld an interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which had directed the depositof ₹20 lakh in two equal instalments. The appeal arises from an interim order dated 04.11.2025 in S.A. No 156 of 2025 was passed by the learned DRT in favour of the appellant. The appellant counsel...


The Debt RecoveryAppellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata, has dismissed an appeal and upheld an interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which had directed the depositof ₹20 lakh in two equal instalments.

The appeal arises from an interim order dated 04.11.2025 in S.A. No 156 of 2025 was passed by the learned DRT in favour of the appellant.

The appellant counsel Ms. Boddani Rama Sita, Mr. Tirthankar Das, is challenging the impugned order by claiming that she was neither borrower nor guarantor in the loan transaction. Appellant’s only grievance is that although appellant is neither borrower nor guarantor, learned DRT has passed the 2 impugned orders directing her to deposit Rs. 20.00 lakhs in two equal instalments.

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Order Refusing to Condone Delay in Central Excise Appeals Filed During Pendency of Rectification Applications [Read Judgement]

The tribunal noted that the DRT had already passed an interim order in her favour on 04 November 2025, granting her protection subject to the deposit condition.

The bench, Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava (Chairperson), observed that whether the securitisation applicant was borrower or guarantor was a matter to be decided at the final hearing, and that the interim order was in fact a lenient view taken in her favour.

It is also held that no illegality or infirmity in the DRT’s order, the appellate tribunal held that the appeal lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

Quoted as :

“I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned DRT; rather learned DRT has taken a lenient view in favour of the appellant by passing the impugned order. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage in limine. “

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019