[2025:RJ-JP:17159] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17743/2016 1. Asia Rubber Industries, G-216, Bichhwal Industrial Area, Bikaner through its Proprietor Gurvinder Singh, Son of Shri Gurbax Singh, 8 Sadul C, G-216, Bichhwal Industrial Area, Bikaner 2. Gurvinder Singh, Son Of Shri Gurbax Singh, Plot No. 8 Sadul Colony, Bikaner ----Petitioners Versus Union of India through its Authorized Officer, C/o Regional Office, University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mudit Singhvi, Adv. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short ‘the DRAT’) by which the application filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by directing him to deposit 25% amount of the debt demanded by the Bank via a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act of 2002’). 2. At the outset counsel for the respondent has apprised this Court that the pre-deposit is a requisite condition which can be imposed by the Appellate Tribunal against the recovery matters arising out of the SARFAESI Act of 2002. Counsel submits that in [2025:RJ-JP:17159] (2 of 2) [CW-17743/2016] the instant case instead of asking deposition of the 100% amount, the DRAT specifically asked the petitioner to deposit 25% of the debt amount as demanded by respondent-Bank. Counsel submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. UCO Bank & Ors. reported in 2011 (4) SCC 548 has held that when the statute confers right of appeal, Legislature can impose conditions for exercise of such right and so long as conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions. Hence, under these circumstances interference of this Court is not warranted. 3. Considering the factual aspect of the matter and the law propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narayan Chandra (Supra), this Court finds no illegality in the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the DRAT, which requires any interference of this Court. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu-85