Sl.62 22.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3051 of 2026 IDBI Bank Limited -versus- Manoj Kumar Jayaswal & Ors. Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate Mr. Suryaneel Das Mr. Akash Munshi Ms. Harshita Malik Mr. R.K. Yadav Mr. Subha Pathak ..for the petitioner Mr. Souritra Ganguly Ms. Atreyee De (Ganguly) Mr. Aniruddha Sinha ..for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the bank and is directed against an order being no.5 dated 28th July, 2026 passed by the Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 695 of 2026. By the order impugned the application at the instance of the borrowers/opposite party nos. 1 and 2 seeking waiver of the pre-deposit stood disposed of. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 3rd September, 2018 in Appeal No. 167 of 2018 directing the borrowers to deposit a sum of Rs.25 crores either in the loan account or with the Registrar within specified time frame. He further refers to an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench challenging the 2 aforesaid order whereby the civil revisional application being C.O. 3159 of 2018 was dismissed as withdrawn subject to payment of cost. He would submit that since an earlier stage of the proceeding between the self same parties, the borrowers/opposite party nos. 1 and 2 were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 25 crores, the learned Judge of the Appellate Tribunal ought to have directed the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to deposit the said amount prior to taking up the hearing of the appeal. Per contra Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the order directing deposit of the amount of Rs. 25 crores in the loan account or with the Registrar was passed on a different context when the sale was being challenged with respect to a valuation made by the another valuer. He submits that there is no requirement to make any pre-deposit in an appeal filed under the provisions of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against an interlocutory order. After going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the application at the instance of the borrower seeking waiver of the pre-deposit was considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the debt is yet to be determined and, therefore, pre- deposit is not required to be made. Since the issue of waiver of the pre-deposit fell for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal, and the debt 3 is yet to be determined this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order holding that there is no requirement to make pre-deposit to maintain the appeal against a recovery order do not call for any interference. The learned Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the issue of deposit of Rs. 25 crores touches upon the merits of the matter. Parties will be at liberty to raise all points before the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law at the time of hearing of the appeal. The learned Appellate Tribunal is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties With the above observations, C.O. 3051 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)