Consolidated SARFAESI pre-deposit cannot be bifurcated for refund after one connected appeal is treated as premature.

A reduced pre-deposit made under the SARFAESI Act was treated as a consolidated lump-sum deposit across connected accounts and appeals, following the petitioner's request for reduction from the statutory level. Because the deposit was not segregated account-wise, the petitioner could not later bifurcate it and seek refund merely because one securitisation application was found premature. On the facts, the Tribunal's refusal to order refund was upheld, and no interference was warranted under Article 226.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the reduced pre-deposit made under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act after the appeal was treated as premature.

Analysis: The pre-deposit was made pursuant to a composite order passed on the petitioner's request for reduction of the statutory deposit from 50% to 25% in respect of all the connected accounts and appeals. The deposit was accepted as a consolidated amount and was not segregated account-wise. The challenge to one appeal as premature did not alter the fact that the Tribunal had already acted on the petitioner's concession for a lump-sum deposit across the connected matters. In the circumstances, the petitioner could not later seek to bifurcate the deposit and claim refund merely because one securitisation application was dismissed as premature. The Court also found that, on the facts, the Tribunal's refusal to order refund required no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to refund of the pre-deposit and the refusal to grant refund was upheld.

---