Statutory pre-deposit conditions under the Securitisation Act upheld as valid, with no Article 14 violation.

A statutory right of appeal may be made subject to a pre-deposit condition, and in a non-adjudicatory recovery scheme the Legislature may confine waiver discretion within defined limits without offending Article 14. Applying that principle, the provisos to section 18 of the Securitisation Act were upheld as valid because Parliament could require a deposit for entertaining the appeal and prescribe a minimum waiver threshold. The Tribunal's order directing deposit was found consistent with the statutory scheme and the materials before it, so no interference under Article 226 was warranted. The constitutional challenge failed and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisos to section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, imposing a pre-deposit requirement and limiting waiver to not less than 25 per cent, were unconstitutional as discriminatory and violative of Article 14, and whether the direction to deposit Rs. 7 crores warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right of appeal is a creature of statute and may be conditioned by the Legislature. The Securitisation Act is designed to enable expeditious recovery of secured debts through a non-adjudicatory process and to remove fetters on the secured creditor's rights. In that statutory setting, Parliament was competent to require a pre-deposit as a condition for entertaining an appeal and to confine the Appellate Tribunal's discretion by prescribing a minimum deposit threshold. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's view that the provisos were not onerous and that the scheme of the Act justified a stricter deposit condition than that found in comparable legislation. The Tribunal had considered the material and fixed the deposit in accordance with the statutory discipline, leaving no ground for interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to section 18 failed, and the order directing deposit of Rs. 7 crores did not call for interference. The petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate right may validly be made subject to a pre-deposit condition, and where the parent enactment pursues a non-adjudicatory recovery scheme, the Legislature may restrict waiver discretion within defined limits without offending Article 14.

---