ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishwas Shah for learned advocate Ms. Bhavna Shah for the petitioners. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in IA No. 257 of 2022 in Appeal on Diary No. 552 of 2022 with regard to direction to the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 1.70 crores as a condition for maintainability of the appeal as per the second proviso to section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 [‘SARFAESI Act’ for short]. 3. The facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition, are narrated here-in-below without going into the past history of the litigation between the parties. 4. The petitioner challenging the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has preferred the appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act being Appeal on Diary No. 552 of 2022. 5. The petitioner also preferred an application being IA No. 257 of 2022 in Appeal on Diary No. 552 of 2022 for waiver of the pre-deposit as provided under second proviso to section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. According to the petitioner, the claim made by the respondent-Bank is Rs. 9,50,85,467.96 as of 31.03.2016 together with interest at prime lending rate [‘PLR’ for short]+0.25% and therefore the bank cannot ask for any further amount at the stage of considering the request of waiver by the petitioner with regard to interest rate of 14% as claimed by the bank before the DRAT. It is the case of the petitioner that DRAT has committed an error by considering the claim made by the respondent Bank considering the interest @14% in view of the subsequent admission made by the petitioner before the DRT in the securitization application filed by the petitioner being SA No. 387 of 2019. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Vishwash Shah for the petitioner submitted that on bare perusal of section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the DRAT is required to consider only the claim made by the respondent-bank against the borrower or the amount of decree passed by the DRT whichever is less. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Vishwash Shah for the petitioner submitted that on bare perusal of section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the DRAT is required to consider only the claim made by the respondent-bank against the borrower or the amount of decree passed by the DRT whichever is less. As there is no decree passed by the DRT against the petitioner borrower, the claim made by the petitioner in notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is required to be seen. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shah therefore referred to clause 4 of the notice dated 12.04.2016 issued under section 13(2) by the respondent-Bank which reads as under: “(4) For the reasons stated above, we hereby give you notice Under Section 13(2) of the above noted act and call upon you to discharge in full your liabilities by paying to the Bank the sum of Rs. 9,50,85,467.96 (contractual dues upto the date 31/03/2016) with interest @PLR +0.25% p.a. within a period of 60 days from the date of this notice, failing which please note that we will entirely at your risk as to costs and consequences exercise the section 13 of the Securitization of Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, against the secured assets mentioned above.” 9. Relying upon the above clause (4) it was submitted that as per the provisions of SARFAESI, Act the claim made by the bank would be Rs. 9,50,85,467.96 which are admitted contractual due up to 31.03.2016 with interest PLR + 0.25% per annum only. It was submitted that the bank has already recovered about Rs. 10.78 crores which is not in dispute. It was also submitted that the DRAT could not have taken into consideration the rate of interest at 14% while imposing the condition of pre-deposit of 25% as per the provision of section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. J.R.Shah for the respondent Bank submitted that relying upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3: “(i) I say that respondent bank has released the property by executing necessary documents and copy of the said released document is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1. (ii) I say that respondent bank has also produced statement of account and the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-2. (ii) I say that respondent bank has also produced statement of account and the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-2. I say that said statement of account has been produced by the petitioners in the writ petition no. 5265 of 2020 filed before this Hon’court. (iii) I say that the petitioners has written a letter on 26.9.2019 and in the said letter the petitioners has admitted rate of interest i.e. 14% and copy of the said letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-3. (iv) I say that the petitioners has field M.A. No. 6/2021 in S.A. No. 1/2017 before the Hon. D.R.T at Ahmedabad and in the said M.A, the respondent bank has filed necessary reply and copy of the said reply is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-4. (v) I say that petitioners has filed Special Civil Application No. 5265 of 2020 before this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court has granted ad interim relief and accordingly the respondent Bank has filed Civil Application No. 1 of 2021 before this Hon’ble Court and sought vacation of the order dated 27.2.2020 passed in the said Special Civil Application. Copy of the Civil Application No. 1 of 2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-5 with the present reply.” 11. It was submitted that the respondent-bank has to recover Rs. 6,78,71,314.45 as of 30.06.2022 considering the rate of interest at 14% as admitted by the petitioner in the letter dated 26.09.2019. Learned advocate Mr. Shah therefore submitted that as per the respondent-bank, the claim of the respondent Bank is Rs. 6,78,71,314.45 when the petitioner preferred the appeal before the DRAT and therefore, order of the DRAT is in consonance with the provisions of section 18 and no interference is required to be made by this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record the only short question which is arising for adjudication before this Court is with regard to interpretation of second proviso to section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It could be therefore germane to refer the provision of section 18 of the SARFAESI Act which reads as under: “18. It could be therefore germane to refer the provision 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 the 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.” 13. On perusal of the above provision of section 18 more particularly, second proviso which clearly provides that no appeal shall be entertained by the DRAT unless the borrower has deposited 50% of the amount of debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the Debt Recover Tribunal whichever is less. 14. Therefore, the question arises, what would be the amount of debt due by the borrower as claimed by the secured creditor as whether the same would be the amount claimed as stated in the notice under section 13(2) of the Act or as the claim of the secured creditor for amount due when the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 15. The claim of the secured creditor is not defined under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Therefore, it would be necessary to consider the claim of the secured creditor as and when the appeal is preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. Admittedly, the claim of the respondent-Bank to the tune of Rs. 15. The claim of the secured creditor is not defined under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Therefore, it would be necessary to consider the claim of the secured creditor as and when the appeal is preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. Admittedly, the claim of the respondent-Bank to the tune of Rs. 6,78,71,314.45 is not disputed by the petitioner considering the admitted rate of interest at 14% per annum. Therefore, the DRAT has rightly passed the impugned order invoking third proviso reducing the amount of pre-deposit to 25% of the claim of the secured creditor made by the respondent-bank. 16. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim relief granted by this Court is extended for two weeks. Notice is discharged.