The Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors., dated 16.02.21 reiterated that “It is noticed that this Court while considering an analogous   provision contained in Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement   of   Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI’ for short) relating to pre­deposit in order to avail the remedy of appeal has expressed a similar opinion in  the  case of Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others (2011) 4 SCC 548, which reads as hereunder: ­

7. Section 18(1) of the Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section   17 of   the   Act   to   prefer   an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.  However, the right conferred under Section 18(1) is subject to the condition laid   down in the second proviso thereto. The second proviso postulates that   no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the   Appellate Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. However, under the third proviso to the   sub­section, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to reduce the amount, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, to not less than twenty­five percent of the debt, referred to in the second proviso.

Thus, there is an absolute bar to entertainment of an appeal under Section 18 of the Act unless the condition precedent, as stipulated, is fulfilled. Unless the borrower makes, with the Appellate Tribunal, a pre-deposit of fifty per cent of the debt due from him or determined, an appeal under the said provision cannot be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal. The language of the said proviso is clear and admits of no ambiguity.

8. It is well settled that when a Statute confers a right of appeal, while granting the right, the Legislature can impose conditions for the exercise of such right, so long as the conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions, rendering the right almost illusory. Bearing in mind the object of the Act, the conditions hedged in the said proviso cannot be said to be onerous. Thus, we hold that the requirement of   pre­deposit under sub­section (1) of Section 18 of the Act is mandatory   and there is no reason whatsoever for not giving full effect to the   provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. In that view of the matter, no court, much less the Appellate Tribunal, a creature of the Act itself, can refuse to give full effect to the provisions of the Statute. We have no hesitation in holding that deposit under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under the said Section, the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in entertaining the   appeal without directing the appellant to comply with the said mandatory requirement.”