2021 INSC 0078
               REPORTABLE
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL APPEAL NO.   538  OF 2021
   (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.21555 of 2019)
Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited        .…Appellant(s)
Versus
Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors.         ….  Respondent(s)
WITH 
CONT.PET.(C)No.569/2020 in SLP(C) No. 21555/2019
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
        
       Leave granted.     
2.   The appellant is before this Court assailing  the order
dated   16.07.2019   passed   in   W.P.(C)   No.7530   of   2019
whereby   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   has   permitted   the
respondents   No.   1   and   2   herein   to   prosecute   the   appeal
1

before  the  Debts  Recovery   Appellate  Tribunal   (‘DRAT’   for
short)   without   pre­deposit   of   a   portion   of   the   debt
determined   to   be   due,   as   provided   under   Section   21   of
the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (‘RDBA
Act’   for   short).   The   appellant/Bank   claiming   to   be
aggrieved   by   the   said   order   is   before   this   Court   in   the
instant appeal. 
3. This   Court   while   taking   note   of   the   matter   at   the
first   instance,   had   through   the   order   dated   22.11.2019
directed   the   respondents   No.1   and   2   to   deposit   an
amount of Rs.20 Crores before the Registry of this Court
within   a   period   of   8   weeks.   In   the   said   order   it   was
indicated   that   the   further   proceedings   in   the   appeal
before the DRAT shall remain stayed till the next date of
hearing   or   till   the   date   of   deposit   of   the   said   amount   by
the   respondents   No.1   and   2,   whichever   is   earlier.   The
deposit   as   directed   by   this   Court   has   not   been   made   by
the   respondents   No.1   and   2.   The   appellant/Bank,
therefore, alleging that there is disobedience of the order
passed   by   this   Court   has   filed   the   accompanying
2

Contempt   Petition   seeking   action   against   respondents   1
and   2.   In   that   background,   since   both   these   matters
pertain   to   the   same   issue,   they   are   taken   up   together,
considered and disposed of by this common order. 
4. The brief facts leading to the present proceedings is
that   the   respondent   No.3,   namely,   Hindon   River   Mills
Ltd. had availed financial assistance from the respondent
No.6­   IFCI   Ltd.   The   respondents   No.1   and   2   had   offered
their   personal   guarantee   in   respect   of   the   said   financial
assistance.   The   respondents   No.1   to   3   had   defaulted   in
re­payment   of   the   dues   and   the   account   having   been
classified   as   non­performing   asset   was   thereafter
auctioned   by   respondent   No.6­IFCI   Ltd.   wherein   the
appellant   herein   was   the   successful   bidder   and
accordingly,   the   unpaid   debt   and   non­performing   asset
was   assigned   in   their   favour.   The   assignment   as   made
was   assailed   by   the   respondents   No.   1   to   3   before   the
High Court in WP(C) No.14999 of 2006 which came to be
dismissed   and   the   SLP(C)   No.   35004   of   2011   filed   was
taken note by this Court and in the said proceedings the
3

settlement   which   was   entered   into   between   the   parties
was recorded and disposed of. As per the settlement, the
respondents   No.   1   to   3   had   agreed   to   repay   the   sum   of
Rs.145 Crores with interest at 15% per annum subject to
the   same   being   repaid   on   or   before   31.07.2012.   The
respondents No. 1 to 3 are stated to have not adhered to
the   terms   of   settlement   and   the   re­payment   was   not
made.   The   appellant   Bank,   therefore,   instituted   recovery
proceedings   by   filing   an   application   before   the   Debts
Recovery   Tribunal   (‘DRT’   for   short),   New   Delhi   in   O.A.
No.281   of   2015.   In   the   said   proceedings   the   appellant
Bank   claimed   that   the   respondents   No.   1   to   3   would   be
liable   to   pay   the   entire   outstanding   since   the   benefit   of
the   settlement   wherein   the   outstanding   amount   was
frozen   had   not   been   availed   within   the   time   frame.
Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 572,18,77,112/­(Rupees Five
Hundred   Seventy­Two   Crores   Eighteen   Lakhs   Seventy­
Seven   Thousand   and   One   Hundred   Twelve),   which   was
due   as   on   31.12.2014   along   with   interest   and   other
charges was claimed before the DRT. 
4

5. When this was the position, during the pendency of
O.A.No.281   of   2015   before   the   DRT   the   respondent
No.7/National   Highways   Authority   of   India   (‘NHAI’   for
short),   acquired   a   portion   of   the   mortgaged   property
belonging   to   respondent   No.3   and   deposited   the
compensation   amount   of   Rs.62,31,87,312/­(Rupees
Sixty­Two   Crores   Thirty­One   Lakhs   Eighty­Seven
Thousand   and   Three   Hundred   Twelve),   before   the   DRT.
The   compensation   was   thereafter   enhanced   by   the
District   Magistrate   (Arbitrator)   Ghaziabad   and   a   further
sum   of   Rs.72,96,12,827/­(Rupees   Seventy­Two   Crores
Ninety­Six   Lakhs   Twelve   Thousand   and   Eight­Hundred
Twenty­Seven)   was   deposited.   Thus,   in   all   a   sum   of
Rs.152,81,07,159/­(Rupees   One   Hundred   Fifty­Two
Crores   Eighty­One   Lakhs   Seven   Thousand   and   One
Hundred Fifty­Nine) was the compensation amount which
was   deposited   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.3   relating   to
the   mortgaged   property,   which   was   credited   to   the
account  of  respondent  No.3. With these  developments  in
the   background,  the   DRT   had  proceeded   to  consider   the
5

claim application and ultimately ordered issue of recovery
certificate   through   the   order   dated   15.03.2018.   Through
the said order, as against the claim, the DRT had limited
the decretal amount to Rs.145 Crores with future interest
at   9%   per   annum   till   the   realisation,   on   reducing
balance.   It   was   further   ordered   therein   that   the   amount
would   be   payable   after   taking   into   consideration   the
amount   of   Rs.152,81,07,159/­(Rupees   One   Hundred
Fifty­Two Crores Eighty­One Lakhs Seven Thousand and
One Hundred Fifty­Nine) paid during the pendency of the
proceedings.
6. The   appellant/Bank   as   well   as   respondents   No.   1
to   3   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by   the   order   dated
15.03.2018 passed by DRT have preferred appeals before
the  DRAT.  This Court  at  this   juncture  is  not  required  to
consider the merits of the rival contentions relating to the
loan   transaction   and   the   quantum   of   recovery   thereof
etc.,   which   is   the   matter   arising   in   the   appeal   before
DRAT. The present proceeding is limited only with regard
to the issue pertaining to the pre­deposit contemplated in
6

law   insofar   as   the   appeal   filed   by   the   respondents   No.1
and   2   herein,   before   the   DRAT.   In   that   regard,   the
respondents No.1 and 2 herein, in their Appeal No.311 of
2018 before the DRAT had also filed an application in IA
No.511  of  2018  seeking  waiver   of  pre­deposit  amounting
to   fifty  per   cent   of   the   debt  determined   by  the   DRT.   The
DRAT  having   noticed   the   contentions   on   the   said   aspect
and   also   taking   into   consideration   that   the   amount   of
Rs.152,81,07,159/­(Rupees   One   Hundred   Fifty­Two
Crores   Eighty­One   Lakhs   Seven   Thousand   and   One
Hundred Fifty­Nine) was received by the appellant Bank,
had   in   that   context   noted   that   the   balance   of   the   debt
due   works   out   to   Rs.68,18,92,841/­   (Rupees   Sixty­Eight
Crores   Eighteen   Lakhs   Ninety­Two   Thousand   and   Eight
Hundred   Forty­One).   Hence,   DRAT   through   the   order
dated   27.02.2019   directed   that   fifty   per   cent   of   the   said
amount is to be deposited.  Review filed against the same
was dismissed on 09.04.2019. 
7. The   respondents   No.1   and   2   claiming   to   be
aggrieved   by   the   orders   dated   27.02.2019   and
7

09.04.2019 approached the High Court of Delhi in WP(C)
No.7530 of 2019. The High Court having adverted to the
rival   contentions   and   being   swayed   by   the   fact   that   the
appellant/Bank   has   recovered   the   sum   of
Rs.152,81,07,159/­(Rupees   One   Hundred   Fifty­Two
Crores   Eighty­One   Lakhs   Seven   Thousand   and   One
Hundred   Fifty­Nine),   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   the
respondents No.1 and 2 are to be permitted to prosecute
the   appeal   without   pre­deposit   and   directed   accordingly.
It   is   in   that   view,   the   appellant/Bank   claiming   to   be
aggrieved by such order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the
High Court is before this Court in the instant appeal. 
8. Heard   Mr.   V.Giri,   learned   Senior   Advocate   for   the
appellant, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and  Mr.  Ritin  Rai, learned
Senior   Advocates   for   the   respondents   and   perused   the
appeal papers. 
9.   As   seen,   though   the   sequence   which   led   to   the
proceedings before the DRT and DRAT is taken note and
referred in  some  detail,  the  short issue for   consideration
is with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the order
8

passed   by   the   DRAT   and   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   in   the
matter   relating   to   pre­deposit   of   the   debt   due,   in   an
appeal   before   the   DRAT.   In   order   to   address   the   said
issue, it would be appropriate to take note of Section 21
of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 which
provides   for   deposit   of   the   amount   of   debt   due   on   filing
the appeal. Section 21 of the RDBA reads as hereunder: ­
“Deposit   of   amount   of   debt   due,   on   filing
appeal  – Where an appeal is preferred by any
person from whom the amount of debt is due
to   a   bank   or   a   financial   institution   or   a
consortium of banks or financial institutions,
such   appeal   shall   not   be   entertained   by   the
Appellate   Tribunal   unless   such   person   has
deposited   with   the   Appellate   Tribunal   [fifty
per cent.] of the amount of debt so due from
him   as   determined   by   the   Tribunal   under
section 19:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may ,  for
reasons to be recorded in writing, [reduce the
amount   to   be   deposited   by   such   amount
which   shall   not   be   less   than   twenty­five   per
cent .   of   the   amount   of   such   debt   so   due]   to
be deposited under this section.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. A   perusal   of   the   provision   which   employs   the
phrase “appeal shall not be entertained” indicates that it
9

injuncts   the   Appellate   Tribunal   from   entertaining   an
appeal by a person from whom the amount of debt is due
to   the  Bank,   unless   such   person   has   deposited   with   the
Appellate Tribunal, fifty percent of the amount of debt so
due   from   him   as   determined   by   the   Tribunal   under
Section   19   of   the   Act.   The   proviso   to   the   said   Section,
however,   grants   the   discretion   to   the   Appellate   Tribunal
to   reduce   the   amount   to   be   deposited,   for   reasons   to   be
recorded in writing, but such reduction shall not be less
than   twenty­five   per   cent   of   the   amount   of   such   debt
which is due.  Hence the pendulum of discretion to waive
pre­deposit is allowed to swing between fifty per cent and
twenty­five   per   cent   of   the   debt   due   and   not   below
twenty­five per cent, much less not towards total waiver.
It  is  in   that   background,   keeping   in  perspective  the   said
provision,   the   DRAT   has   in   the   instant   case   ordered
deposit   of   fifty   per   cent   of   the   amount.   The   respondents
No.1   and   2   while   seeking   waiver   of   the   deposit   have
essentially projected the case to indicate that the recovery
certificate   ordered   by   the   DRT   is   for   the   sum   of   Rs.145
10

Crores   with   interest   at   9%   per   annum   and   the   amount
realised   by   the   Bank   from   the   compensation   amount
payable   to   respondent   No.3   is   itself   a   sum   of
Rs.152,81,07,159/­(Rupees   One   Hundred   Fifty   Two
Crores   Eighty   One   Lakhs   Seven   Thousand   and   One
Hundred Fifty Nine) and as such there is no debt due.  
11. In   that   regard   the   High   Court   has   concluded   as
hereunder: ­
“9. Having   heard   learned   senior   counsels
for the parties, we are of the considered view
that learned DRAT has not viewed the aspect
of   pre­deposit   correctly   in   the   present   case.
The   amount   of   Rs.152,81,07,159/­   was
received   by   the   respondent­bank   during   the
pendency   of   the   Original   Application.     The
respondent­bank   did   not   amend   its   Original
Application to  claim  that  it has adjusted the
said   amount,   and   did   not   limit   its   claim   for
the   balance   amount.     Consequently,   while
adjudicating   the   Original   Application,   the
DRT   has   proceeded   on   the   basis   that   the
respondent­bank is bound by the settlement
amount   of   Rs.145   crores,   and   is   entitled   to
future interest thereon at the  rate of 9% per
annum   from   5 th
  July,   2012   onwards   till
realization   on   the   reducing   balance,   after
taking   into   account   the   amount   of
Rs.152,81,07,159/­   received   during   the
pendency of the Original Application. 
11

10.     Aforesaid   being   the   position,   merely
because   the   amount   of   Rs.152,81,07,159/­
was   received   by   the   respondent­bank   before
passing   of   the   final   judgment,   and   not
thereafter,   would   make   no   difference   while
considering the aspect of pre­deposit that the
debtor,   or   the   guarantor   would   have   to
deposit   in   terms   of   Section   21   of   the
aforesaid Act.”
12. The extracted portion indicates that the High Court
has proceeded at a tangent while adverting to the aspect
of recovery made towards the loan amount from the land
acquisition   compensation   payable   to   respondent   No.3.
The   conclusion   appears   to   be   that   the   receipt   of   the
compensation amount even though was before passing of
the decree, would wipe out the decretal amount of Rs.145
Crores with interest at 9% per annum, though it has not
been   expressly   stated   so.   Per   contra,   the   DRAT   by   its
order dated 27.02.2019 while directing the pre­deposit of
fifty   per   cent   of   the   amount   had   taken   note   of   the   fact
that   if   the   decretal   amount   as   ordered   by   the   DRT   is
taken into consideration and the amount received by the
12

Bank   towards   the   compensation   amount   is   credited,   the
balance   of   the   decretal   amount   payable   by   respondents
No.1   to   3   would   work   out   to   Rs.68,18,92,841/­   (Rupees
Sixty Eight Crores Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand
and   Eight   Hundred   Forty   One).   It   is   in   that   view,   the
DRAT has ordered pre­deposit of fifty per cent of the said
amount   which   still   remains   to   be   a   debt   due.   On   that
aspect,   though   the   ultimate   correctness   of   the   actual
amount due is a matter for calculation to be made in the
execution proceedings, for the present, for the purpose of
pre­deposit   if   the   decree/recovery   certificate   issued   by
the   DRT   is   taken  into   consideration   the   position   is   clear
that even if the amount of compensation is appropriated,
either   before   or   after   the   decree,   there   would   still   be
outstanding amount payable which would be the subject
matter of the appeal in DRAT, apart from the fact that the
appellant   Bank   in   their   appeal   are   claiming   the   entire
amount   which   has   fallen   due   since   the   terms   of
settlement was not adhered to. 
13

13. Thus,   when   prima   facie   it   was   taken   note   by   the
DRAT   that   further   amount   was   due   and   the   pre­deposit
was   ordered,   without   finding   fault   with   such   conclusion
the   High   Court   was   not   justified   in   setting   aside   the
orders passed by  the DRAT. As noted from the extracted
portion of the order passed by the High Court, all that the
High   Court   has   concluded   is   that   the   benefit   of   the
receipt of Rs.152,81,07,159/­(Rupees One Hundred Fifty
Two   Crores   Eighty   One  Lakhs   Seven  Thousand   and   One
Hundred   Fifty   Nine)   as   against   the   decretal   amount
cannot be denied though it was received before passing of
the   final   judgment.   Such   conclusion   in   any   event   could
not   have   tilted   the   balance   in   favour   of   the   respondents
No.1   and   2   to   waive   the   entire   pre   deposit,   unless   the
High   Court   had   rendered   a   categorical   finding   that   the
entire decretal amount stands satisfied from such receipt
and   there   was   no   debt   due   which   in   any   event   was
beyond   the   scope   of   consideration   in   a   petition   of   the
present   nature.  On   the   other  hand,  as   stated,  the   DRAT
having   taken   note   of   the   decretal   amount,   the   receipt   of
14

the amount credited as compensation and, having further
noted   the   debt   is   still   due,   has   directed   the   pre­deposit
limited to that extent. 
14. Therefore,   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   arising
herein,   when   further   amount   is   due   and   payable   in
discharge of the decree/recovery certificate issued by the
DRT   in   favour   of   the   appellant/Bank,   the   High   Court
does   not   have   the   power   to   waive   the   pre­deposit   in   its
entirety,   nor   can   it   exercise   discretion   which   is   against
the   mandatory   requirement   of   the   statutory   provision   as
contained in Section 21, which is extracted above.   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,   any   waiver   of   pre­deposit   to   the   entire   extent
would be against the statutory provisions and, therefore,
not   sustainable   in   law.     The   order   of   the   High   Court   is,
therefore, liable to be set aside. 
15

15. It   is   noticed   that   this   Court   while   considering   an
analogous   provision   contained   in   Section   18   of   the
Securitisation   and   Reconstruction   of   Financial   Assets
and   Enforcement   of   Security   Interest   Act,   2002
(‘SARFAESI’   for   short)   relating   to   pre­deposit   in   order   to
avail   the   remedy   of   appeal   has   expressed   a   similar
opinion   in   the   case   of   Narayan   Chandra   Ghosh   vs.
UCO   Bank   and   Others   (2011)   4   SCC   548,   which   reads
as hereunder: ­
7.   Section 18(1)   of the Act confers a statutory
right   on   a   person   aggrieved   by   any   order
made   by   the   Debts   Recovery   Tribunal
under   Section   17   of   the   Act   to   prefer   an
appeal   to   the   Appellate   Tribunal.   However,
the   right   conferred   under        Section   18(1)        is
subject   to   the   condition   laid   down   in   the
second   proviso   thereto.   The   second   proviso
postulates   that   no   appeal   shall   be
entertained   unless   the   borrower   has
deposited   with   the   Appellate   Tribunal   fifty
per cent of the amount of debt due from him,
as   claimed   by   the   secured   creditors   or
determined   by   the   Debts   Recovery   Tribunal,
whichever   is   less.   However,   under   the   third
proviso   to   the   sub­section,   the   Appellate
Tribunal   has   the   power   to   reduce   the
amount,   for   the   reasons   to   be   recorded   in
writing, to not less than twenty­five per  cent
16

of the debt, referred to in the second proviso.
Thus,   there   is   an   absolute   bar   to
entertainment   of   an   appeal   under        Section
18        of the Act unless the condition precedent,
as stipulated, is fulfilled. Unless the borrower
makes,   with   the   Appellate   Tribunal,   a   pre­
deposit of fifty per cent of the debt due from
him or determined, an appeal under the said
provision   cannot   be   entertained   by   the
Appellate  Tribunal.   The  language  of  the   said
proviso is clear and admits of no ambiguity.  
8. It   is   well­settled   that   when   a   Statute
confers   a   right   of   appeal,   while   granting   the
right,   the   Legislature   can   impose   conditions
for  the exercise of such  right, so long  as the
conditions   are   not   so   onerous   as   to   amount
to   unreasonable   restrictions,   rendering   the
right   almost   illusory.   Bearing   in   mind   the
object   of   the   Act,   the   conditions   hedged   in
the   said   proviso   cannot   be   said   to   be
onerous.  Thus, we hold that the requirement
of   pre­deposit   under   sub­section   (1)
of        Section   18        of   the   Act   is   mandatory   and
there   is   no   reason   whatsoever   for   not   giving
full   effect   to   the   provisions   contained
in        Section   18        of   the   Act .   In   that   view   of   the
matter,   no   court,   much   less   the   Appellate
Tribunal,   a   creature   of   the   Act   itself,   can
refuse   to   give   full   effect   to   the   provisions   of
the Statute.  We have no hesitation in holding
that   deposit   under   the   second   proviso
to        Section   18(1)        of   the   Act   being   a   condition
precedent for preferring an appeal under the
said   Section,   the   Appellate   Tribunal   had
erred   in   law   in   entertaining   the   appeal
17

without   directing   the   appellant   to   comply
with the said mandatory requirement .
9.   The   argument   of   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant   that   as   the   amount   of   debt   due
had   not   been   determined   by   the   Debts
Recovery   Tribunal,   appeal   could   be
entertained   by   the   Appellate   Tribunal
without   insisting   on   pre­deposit,   is   equally
fallacious.   Under   the   second   proviso   to   sub­
section   (1)   of   Section   18   of   the   Act   the
amount of fifty per cent, which is required to
be   deposited   by   the   borrower,   is   computed
either   with   reference   to   the   debt   due   from
him   as   claimed   by   the   secured   creditors   or
as   determined   by   the   Debts   Recovery
Tribunal, whichever is less. Obviously, where
the   amount   of   debt   is   yet   to   be   determined
by   the   Debts   Recovery   Tribunal,   the
borrower,   while   preferring   appeal,   would   be
liable to deposit fifty per cent of the debt due
from   him   as   claimed   by   the   secured
creditors.   Therefore,   the   condition   of   pre­
deposit   being   mandatory,   a   complete   waiver
of deposit by the appellant with the Appellate
Tribunal,   was   beyond   the   provisions   of   the
Act,   as  is  evident  from   the   second  and   third
provisos   to   the   said   Section .   At   best,   the
Appellate   Tribunal   could   have,   after
recording   the   reasons,   reduced   the   amount
of   deposit   of   fifty  per   cent   to   an  amount   not
less   than   twenty­five   per   cent   of   the   debt
referred   to   in   the   second   proviso.   We   are
convinced   that   the   order   of   the   Appellate
Tribunal,   entertaining   appellant's   appeal
without   insisting   on   pre­deposit   was   clearly
unsustainable and, therefore, the decision of
18

the   High   Court   in   setting   aside   the   same
cannot be flawed.”
    (emphasis supplied)
16. Having arrived at the above conclusion the issue is
also   with   regard   to   the   extent   to   which   pre­deposit   is   to
be ordered in the instant case. Though the learned Senior
Advocates   on   either   side   have   indicated   different   figures
as the actual debt due as on today, we do not propose to
enter   into   that   aspect   of   the   matter   since   the   actual
amount   due   is   a   matter   which   would   be   taken   note   by
the  DRAT  while  considering   the  appeal  on  merits  and  at
the point of recovery if any, in the execution proceedings.
However,   for   the   present   we   would   take   note   of   the
amount   as   indicated   in   the   order   dated   27.02.2019
passed   by   the   DRAT.   Hence,   for   the   purpose   of
determining   the   pre­deposit,   the   decretal   amount   due   is
taken   at   Rs.68,18,92,841/­   (Rupees   Sixty­Eight   Crores
Eighteen   Lakhs   Ninety­Two   Thousand   and   Eight
Hundred   Forty­One).   Mr.   Mukul   Rohtagi,   learned   Senior
Advocate   would   contend   that   a   portion   of   property
19

belonging to respondent No.3 has been acquired and the
remaining   property   is   still   under   mortgage   and   as   such
pre­deposit   would   be   burdensome   to   the   respondents
No.1   and   2,   more   particularly   when   the   entire
compensation   amount   is   deposited   and   major   portion   of
the debt due is discharged. 
17. As   already   noted,   a   total   waiver   would   be   against
the   statutory   provisions.   However,   in   the   instant   case,
taking   note   that   though   the   issue   relating   to   the   actual
amount  due is to be considered by the DRAT, keeping in
view   the   fact   that   the   DRT   has   taken   into   consideration
the   earlier   settlement   and   has   accordingly   decreed   the
claim   to   that   extent   and   towards   such   decree   since
payment   of   a   major   portion   is   made,   though   by
appropriation   of   the   compensation   amount   and
admittedly   since   the   remaining   properties   belonging   to
respondent No.3 is available by way of mortgage and the
respondents No.1 and 2 are the personal guarantors, we
deem   it   appropriate   that   in   the   peculiar   facts   and
circumstances   of   this   case   to   permit   the   pre­deposit   of
20

twenty­five   per   cent   of   the   amount   as   taken   note   by   the
DRAT   i.e.   twenty­five   per   cent   of   Rs.68,18,92,841/­
(Rupees   Sixty   Eight   Crores   Eighteen   Lakhs   Ninety   Two
Thousands   and   Eight   Hundred   Forty   One).   To   the   said
extent,   the   order   dated   27.02.2019   passed   by   the   DRAT
on IA No.511 of 2018 is liable to be modified.
18. It   is   clarified   that   the   consideration   made   herein
and   debt   due   quantified   is   limited   to   the   aspect   relating
to   pre­deposit.   All   other   contentions   including   as   to   the
actual amount of debt due is left open to be urged in the
pending appeals. 
19. In   view   of   the   above   conclusion   the   interim
direction   to   deposit   the   amount   of   Rs.20   Crores   as
ordered   on   22.11.2019   would   lose   its   relevance   at   this
point   of   time.   Though   as   per   the   said   direction   dated
22.11.2019   the   amount   was   to   be   deposited   within   the
time   frame   and   there   is   non­compliance,   in   view   of   the
subsequent   development   of   the   final   order   being   passed
in the appeal, we see no reason to proceed further in the
Contempt   Petition   initiated   by   the   appellant,   though   at
21

an   earlier   point   of   time   notice   was   ordered   to   the
respondent. 
20. In the result;  
(i) The   order   dated   16.07.2019   passed   by   the
High   Court   of   Delhi   in   WP(C)   No.7530   of   2019   is
set aside;
(ii)   The   order   dated   27.02.2019   passed   by   the
DRAT,   Delhi   on   IA   No.511   of   2018   in   Appeal
No.311 of 2018 is modified. The respondents No. 1
and 2 are permitted to deposit twenty­five per cent
of   Rs.68,18,92,841/­(Rupees   Sixty­Eight   Crores
Eighteen   Lakhs   Ninety­Two   Thousand   and   Eight
Hundred   Forty­One)   and   prosecute   the   Appeal
No.311   of   2018,   subject   to   such   deposit   being
made within 8 weeks, failing which the appeal shall
not subsist in the eye of law;
(iii) The  appeal  is accordingly   allowed in  part. No
costs;
22

(iv)       The   Contempt   Petition   No.569   of   2020   is
closed as unnecessary; 
(iv)     Pending   application,   if   any,   shall   stand
disposed of. 
..………… ....................CJI.
                                                (S. A. Bobde)
… ..…………....................J.
                                                (A. S. Bopanna)
..…..………......................J
                                     (V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi,
February 16, 2021
23