Appeal to Appellate Tribunal
Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 deals with appeal to Appellate Tribunal. 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. The Act came into force on 21 Jun 2002.
(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal 1[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.
2[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower:]
3[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.
Section 18, The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs Uco Bank
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The requirement of pre-deposit of fifty percent of the debt under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is a mandatory condition precedent for entertainment of an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. This condition cannot be completely waived or exempted by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal possesses limited discretion only to reduce the amount of pre-deposit to not less than twenty-five percent of the debt, but only if reasons are recorded in writing. No court, including the Appellate Tribunal, can refuse to give full effect to the mandatory statutory provisions of Section 18(1). When the debt amount has not been determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the borrower must deposit fifty percent of the amount as claimed by the secured creditors.
On this section: The entire judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court analyzed the second and third provisos of Section 18(1) which stipulate the mandatory pre-deposit requirement and the limited discretion to reduce the amount. The Court held that the language is clear and unambiguous, imposing an absolute bar to entertainment of appeal unless the condition is fulfilled.
-
Prudent ARC Limited vs Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a borrower appeals an order of Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act challenging both the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) by the secured creditor and the auction sale of secured assets, the borrower must deposit with the Appellate Tribunal 50% of the amount of 'debt due' as claimed by the secured creditor including interest thereon, calculated under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, without adjustment or appropriation of any amount realised from the auction sale of secured assets. The borrower cannot simultaneously challenge the auction sale and claim benefit of the sale proceeds for purposes of satisfying the pre-deposit requirement. The amount deposited by the auction purchaser in the auction sale cannot be treated as 'deposit by borrower' for the purpose of Section 18 unless the borrower unequivocally accepts the auction sale.
On this section: Primary statute governing appeal to Appellate Tribunal and mandatory pre-deposit requirement of 50% of debt due by borrower, with discretionary reduction to minimum 25% by DRAT
-
Axis Bank vs Sbs Organics Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Upon disposal of an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, either on merits or by withdrawal, the mandatory pre-deposit of fifty percent (or reduced amount) of the debt made as a condition precedent for the appellate tribunal to entertain (admit to consideration) the appeal must be refunded to the depositor-borrower in full, unless: (i) the tribunal has appropriated the deposit towards the borrower's outstanding liability with the consent of the depositor, or (ii) the deposit has been adjusted with the consent of the depositor, or (iii) there is lawful attachment on the pre-deposit under Section 13(10) proceedings read with Rule 11 of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, or any other proceedings known to law. The deposit does not constitute a secured asset or secured debt under the SARFAESI Act, and the secured creditor has no general lien over the deposit under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act as the deposit is held by the tribunal, not bailed with the bank.
On this section: Core provision analyzed - establishes the mandatory fifty percent deposit (reducible to twenty-five percent at tribunal's discretion) as a pre-condition for 'entertaining' an appeal, and the question of refund upon disposal of the appeal
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the requirement of deposit is for entertaining the appeal and therefore some reasonable time can be granted to the petitioner to make up the amount required to be paid as pre-deposit in terms of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). Accordingly, this original petition will stand disposed of directing that the petitioner shall be given 2 weeks time to make the deposit directed to be paid in …
-
… As far as Ext.P9 order is concerned, the same is passed on merits and it was proper for the petitioner to have approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 instead of approaching this Court. No case has been put forth justifying interference under Article 227 of the : 9 : Constitution of India and therefore the present …
-
… The Tribunal therefore dismissed IA No.1638/2023 as per Ext.P8 order. 4. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal. Against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioners have effective alternate remedy before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. When the petitioners have effective alternate remedy, I find no reason to adjudicate on the legality of Ext.P8 in this : 5 : OP(DRT). A perusal of Ext.P8 would indicate that the Tribunal has neither failed …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument states that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.
Another 2 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 18
What have the courts held on Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act?
Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs Uco Bank (18 Mar 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: The entire judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court analyzed the second and third provisos of Section 18(1) which stipulate the mandatory pre-deposit requirement and the limited discretion to reduce the amount. The Court held that the language is clear and unambiguous, imposing an absolute bar to entertainment of appeal unless the condition is fulfilled. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 18, section 18 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. People searching for it also type 18c sarfaesi and 18 sarfaesi act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs Uco Bank (18 Mar 2011).
What should I read with Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 17 (Application against measures to recover secured debts), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there is one: most recently Notification SO 466(E) dared 6.4.2004 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2004 (2004).
When did Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act come into force?
Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, cited as Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 18, came into force on 21 Jun 2002, having been enacted on 17 Dec 2002. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2302 words
- 13. Enforcement of security interest1875 words
- 17. Application against measures to recover secured debts929 words
- 30D. Recovery of penalties738 words
- 5. Acquisition of rights or interest in financial assets709 words
- 14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset694 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.