ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the petitioners assisted by learned advocate Mr. Shakti S. Jadeja, learned advocate Mr. Bhaskar Sharma for respondent no.2 and learned advocate Ms. Khyati Chugh for respondent no.3. 2. By this Civil Application, the applicants have prayed for extension of time to deposit amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- as per the order passed by this Court on 16th September, 2021. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicant could deposit only Rs. 25 lakhs out of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to be deposited and, therefore, this application is preferred with a prayer to extend the time to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on or before 12th November, 2021. 4. Mr. Majmudar has also tendered an additional affidavit on behalf of the petitioners filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein following averments are made : “(1) It is submitted that vide order dated 16.09.2021, this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to issue ‘Notice’ upon respondents making it returnable on 20.10.2021 and has further been Pleased to direct the parties to maintain ‘status quo’ with regard to the properties of petitioners and with regard to further proceedings before the Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai on condition that the petitioners shall deposit an amount Rs.1,25,00,000/- before the DRAT, Mumbai within Four Weeks. (2) It is submitted that inspite of intensive efforts, petitioners could gather and arrange for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- only out of Rs.1,25,00,000/ and the said amount of Rs.25,00,000/-has been deposited with Registry of Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai on 13.10.2021. (3) It is submitted that because of extreme financial crunch on the part of the petitioners and inspite of various efforts of petitioners, the petitioners could not raise remaining funds from their sources and therefore, the petitioners have preferred Civil Application No.1 / 2021 before this Hon'ble Court requesting to grant extension of time upto 12.11.2021 to petitioners to deposit remaining amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with registry of Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai. (4) It is submitted that the petitioner no.1-Company is to receive amount after deducting applicable taxes from Rs.1,75,75,597/- from M/s. GAIL (India) Limited through conciliation process which resulted in a mutual settlement agreement dated 17.09.2021 and the same is pending for the Board Approval of M/s. GAIL (India) Ltd. It is submitted that in recent follow-up on 21.10.2021 with the concerned officials of GAIL, the petitioners are informed that the exact date of disbursement of amount from GAIL is uncertain, but the funds would be released by December, 2021 and therefore, the petitioners have started their best efforts to raise funds through private finance so as to meet with the deadline of 12.11.2021 as requested for by petitioners in their Civil Application No.1/2021. The’ petitioners shall deposit remaining amount of Rs.100,00,000/- with the Registry of Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai on or before 12.11.2021 by raising funds through private finance. (5) It is submitted that the petitioners have also sought private financial assistance from their nearby relatives from Andhra Pradesh and are expecting some funds from them. (6) The petitioners shall deposit additional amount of Rs.25,00,000/- by 31.12.2021. Therefore, the petitioners would be depositing total amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,25,00,000/-as directed vide order dated 16.09.2021 passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 5. Referring to the above averments, it was submitted that the applicant shall deposit a further sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- before 12th November, 2021 and additional amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- before 31st December, 2021. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No.362/2019 dated 18th May, 2020 in case of Shri Mohan Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India and another to submit that as held by the Chhattisgarh High Court, 50% of the amount to be deposited by the borrower for entertaining the appeal preferred before DRAT in terms of second proviso to section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, is 50% of the amount of debt due from him as claimed by secured creditor in the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and never beyond. It was therefore, submitted that the DRAT could not have asked the petitioners to pay 50% which can be reduced upto 25% as per the third proviso of section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act of the amount which was payable by the petitioners as per the bank statement when the petitioners preferred the appeal before the DRAT. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar referred to the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the respondent bank and submitted that as per the said notice, outstanding balance as on 29th October, 2017 is reflected as Rs.14,68,58,662.66 and therefore, the amount reaslised by the bank on auction of the property of more than Rs. 12 crores is to be reduced from the outstanding dues as per the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the petitioners are required to make payment of 50% or 25% of the balance amount only. 8. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. Bhaskar Sharma appearing for respondent-bank submitted that the respondent-bank has debited a sum of Rs.6,57,94,643.25 on 31st March, 2021 towards recovery of unapplied interest from the date of NPA till the auction. It was therefore, submitted that total outstanding as on 31st March, 2021 is Rs.11,46,43,271.91 after giving credit of amount more than Rs. 12 crores realised by bank in auction. 9. It was therefore, submitted that Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) has rightly passed the impugned order directing the petitioners to deposit 25% of Rs.11,46,43,271.91 on or before 30th September, 2021, failing which, the appeal filed by the petitioners before the DRAT is ordered to be dismissed automatically. 10. It was further submitted that the interest is calculated by the computer system without any human intervention and, therefore, the same is debited automatically as per the programme of the bank while considering the NPA date of the account of the petitioner company. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and in view of the fact that there are outstanding dues of Rs.11,46,43,271.91 and the bank has explained as to how the amount of Rs.6,57,94,643.25 is debited in the account of the petitioners, the petitioners are liable to pay 25% of the outstanding amount shown by the respondent-bank in the statement of account which is produced at page no. 201 of the petition. 12. The matter is at large to be decided on merits before the DRAT. 201 of the petition. 12. The matter is at large to be decided on merits before the DRAT. The petitioners have approached this Court with only prayer to reduce the amount of deposit with regard to the stay granted by the DRAT by impugned order dated 30th July, 2021. 13. The DRAT applied the second proviso of section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short) and has directed the petitioners to deposit the amount claimed by the secured creditor on 19th June, 2021 i.e. Rs.11,46,43,271.91. 14. In view of above facts, this Court passed the following order on 16th September, 2021 : “1. Heard, learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Sharma for the Respondent-Bank. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has filed Draft Amendment. The same is GRANTED in terms of the Draft tendered today. To be carried out, forthwith. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar submitted that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (in brief, ‘DRAT’), vide order dated 30.07.2021 passed in IA No. 45 of 2021 in Appeal No. 7 of 2021, directed the Petitioner to deposit 25% of Rs.11,46,43,271/- on or before 13.09.2021 in the form of Demand Draft with the Registrar of the DRAT for entertaining the appeal, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed automatically. 3.1 It was submitted that the amount claimed by the Secured Creditor on 19.06.2021 and as recorded by the DRAT i.e. 11,46,43,271/- is not true and correct, as the said amount includes the recovery of Rs.6,57,94,643.25/- which is reflected in the statement of the Bank produced at Page No. 201, Annexure-H without any reference. 3.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- which is almost being the 25% of Rs.4,88,48,628.66/-, excluding the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,57,94,643/- debited by the Bank on 31.03.2021, within the period of four weeks from today. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Sharma appearing for the Respondent-Bank submitted that the DRAT has rightly passed the order reducing the mandatory deposit of 50% of the amount to 25%, as per Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, 2002, as per the outstanding balance amount shown in the statement of account at Page No. 201. 5. 5. In view of the above statement made by the learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar, issue NOTICE, returnable on 20TH OCTOBER, 2021. on condition to deposit a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- before the DRAT, Mumbai, within FOUR WEEKS from today by the petitioner instead of 25% of Rs.11,46,43,271/- directed by DRAT. 5.1 In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain STATUS QUO with regard to the properties of the petitioner and with regard to the further proceedings before the DRAT. 5.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Sharma may file affidavit-in-reply, if any, before the returnable date. Direct service is permitted.” 15. When this order was passed, learned advocate Mr. Sharma could not file any affidavit. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Sharma has now relied upon the averments made in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent-bank which reads as under : “7. I say and submit that the statement of loan account of Petitioner is at page no.201 in the SCA. It is relevant to mention here that Rs.12,20,07,000/- recovered from education were credited in the loan account including TDS by way of 9 credit entries and on receipt of amount in the loan account, unapplied interest of Rs.97,63,222/- was recovered on 30.01.2021 and on receipt of further amount, unapplied interest of Rs.6,57,94,643.25/- was recovered on 31.03.2021. Accordingly, outstanding amount was Rs.11,46,43,271.91/- as on 31.03.202 after recovery of unapplied interest. 8. I say and submit that vide order dated 30.07.2021 passed in IA no. 45/2021 in Appeal no.7/2021, the Appellate Tribunal has reduced the amount to twenty-five percent of debt referred to in the second proviso of section 18 which provides 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. It is duly and correctly recorded in the order dated 30.07.2021 in para no. 9 that there is no determination of debt as on date. Accordingly amount claimed by the Respondent no.2 duly stated in the loan account statement of the Petitioner which is at page no.201 in the SCA which is undisputed wherein Rs.11,46,43,271/-as claim of the Respondent no.2 being outstanding amount is mentioned. 9 that there is no determination of debt as on date. Accordingly amount claimed by the Respondent no.2 duly stated in the loan account statement of the Petitioner which is at page no.201 in the SCA which is undisputed wherein Rs.11,46,43,271/-as claim of the Respondent no.2 being outstanding amount is mentioned. It is most humbly submitted that Petitioners are liable to deposit 25% of Rs.11,46,43,271/- i.e. Rs.2,86,60,817.75/- vide order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai is proper and in accordance with law.” 17. Referring to the above averments, it was submitted that as per the provisions of section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, there is a mandatory provision to deposit at-least 25% of the amount. It is therefore, necessary to refer to the provisions of section 18 of the SARFAESI Act which reads as under : “ 18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.—(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal [under section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to an Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal. {Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower:] {Provided further 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: Provided also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five per cent. of debt referred to in the second proviso.] – (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.” 18. As per the third proviso of section 18, the Tribunal can reduce the amount for deposit from 50% to 25% for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The Tribunal has no right to reduce the amount of deposit less than 25% of the debt as referred to in third proviso. As per the third proviso of section 18, the Tribunal can reduce the amount for deposit from 50% to 25% for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The Tribunal has no right to reduce the amount of deposit less than 25% of the debt as referred to in third proviso. The Second proviso provides 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, which can be reduced upto 25% for the reasons to be recorded by the Tribunal. 19. In facts of the case, it is an admitted fact that the debt claimed by the secured creditor is Rs.11,46,43,271.91, therefore, it cannot be said that the DRAT has committed any error in directing the petitioners to deposit 25% of the said amount so as to entertain the appeal and to grant status-quo order, if any, on deposit of such amount. 20. I have gone through the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Shri Mohan Products Pvt. Ltd.(supra). According to the said decision, the amount to be deposited with the Appellate Tribunal would be 50% of the amount stated in notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In such circumstances, the Court has considered the provisions of section 2(ha) of the SARFAESI Act read with section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (For short “RDB Act“) as well as sections 18, 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in detail and after considering the various provisions, the Court has come to the conclusion that deposit to be made with the Appellate Tribunal would be 50% of the amount of debt due from the borrower as claimed by the secured creditor for notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. 21. 21. However, on analysis of provisions of section 2(ha) of the SARFAESI Act read with section 2(g) of the RDB Act as well as the provisions of section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, it would be necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Parsn Medicinal Plants Private Limited and others v. Indian Bank and others reported in (2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 253 which is also considered by the Chhattisgarh High Court wherein the Apex Court on concession being given by the bank, permitted the Appellate Tribunal to hear the matter on merits on all the questions of law after giving credit of the amount realised by the bank on sale of the assets from the total outstanding dues. 22. In the facts of the case, therefore, it would be in the interest of the petitioners to consider the amount outstanding as on the date when the petitioners filed the appeal before the DRAT, as only dispute is with regard to the debit of unapplied interest to the tune of Rs.6,57,94,643.25 by the respondent bank after giving credit of the amount realised on sale proceeds of more than Rs. 12 crores from the outstanding dues payable by the petitioners. In my opinion, debts due as claimed by the bank or financial institutions would be the amount outstanding to be paid by the borrower at the time of filing of the appeal before DRAT. 23. Section 2(ha) of the SARFAESI Act defines the term “debt” as per section 2(g) of the RDB Act, 1993. In my opinion, debts due as claimed by the bank or financial institutions would be the amount outstanding to be paid by the borrower at the time of filing of the appeal before DRAT. 23. Section 2(ha) of the SARFAESI Act defines the term “debt” as per section 2(g) of the RDB Act, 1993. Section 2(g) of the RDB Act, 1993 reads as under : “(g) “debt” means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application {and includes any liability towards debt securities which remains unpaid in full or part after notice of ninety days served upon the borrower by the debenture trustee or any other authority in whose favour security interest is created for the benefit of holders of debt securities or;]” 24. From the above provisions of section 2(g) of RDB Act, it is clear that the debt means the liability inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution. In my opinion, the liability inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person by a bank means that liability payable by a person inclusive of interest which is claimed by the bank when the person has to pay the outstanding dues. In such circumstances, what is reflected in the bank statement as per the respondent bank to be recovered from the borrower or any person is required to be considered at the time when such person is to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in view of second and third proviso which are inserted in section 18 by the Act no. 30/2004 with effect from 11th November, 2004. 25. 30/2004 with effect from 11th November, 2004. 25. On perusal of the above provisions of section 18 of SARFAESI Act, more particularly, second proviso which provides that the appeal can be entertained only when borrower has deposited with the Tribunal, 50% of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal whichever is less, the debts due from the borrower means the debt as per section 2(g) of the RDB Act which means liability inclusive of interest which is claimed by the secured creditors which means liability of the borrower to be recovered by the secured creditor. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be the amount referred to in the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act because the amount which is referred to in notice under section 13(2) of the Act is the amount which is outstanding as on date when such notice was issued when the account has become Non Performing Asset (NPA) account which is not the debt as defined under section 2(g) of the RDB Act. The debt which is defined under section 2(g) of the RDB Act is the liability inclusive of interest which is claimed by the bank. The claim of the bank would be the debt which the petitioners are required to pay means the outstanding dues as per the accounts with the bank and not as per the notice issued by the bank under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. 26. In such circumstances, the amount which is outstanding as per the accounts of the bank would be material which can be claimed by the bank against the petitioners and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to deposit 25% of the amount of the outstanding shown in the bank account amounting to Rs.11,46,43,271.91. 27. In view of the above position of law and interpretation of the mandatory statutory provisions, the petitioners cannot be given any reduction in deposit of amount less than 25% of the total outstanding amount claimed by the petitioners i.e. 25% of Rs.11,46,43,271.91. 28. 27. In view of the above position of law and interpretation of the mandatory statutory provisions, the petitioners cannot be given any reduction in deposit of amount less than 25% of the total outstanding amount claimed by the petitioners i.e. 25% of Rs.11,46,43,271.91. 28. Moreover, as the petitioners have failed to deposit the entire amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- within the time limit granted by this Court on 16th September, 2021 during the course of considering the position of law as well as the opportunity of hearing to be granted to respondent bank, the petitioners cannot be granted further indulgence in this proceeding. 29. In such circumstances and in view of the above facts and foregoing reasons, the petition is required to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Notice is discharged. Civil Application also stands disposed of in view of dismissal of the petition. 30. As the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order of the DRAT, time limit to deposit the amount as directed by the DRAT is extended for a further period of eight weeks.