Mandatory pre-deposit and pleaded relief limits control DRT challenges; withdrawn-appeal interim orders cannot sustain auction sales.

Mandatory pre-deposit must be complied with before a challenge can be entertained before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and relief cannot be granted beyond the pleadings where the appeal sought only cancellation of confirmation of sale and sale certificate. An auction sale and its confirmation cannot be sustained on the basis of an interim order passed in an earlier appeal once that appeal is withdrawn, because the interim protection ceases to operate. Consequential actions founded solely on such interim relief also fall, and a later compromise cannot cure the earlier defective process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal could be entertained and relief granted in the absence of the mandatory pre-deposit and when the relief sought did not include setting aside of the auction proceedings and sale. (ii) Whether the auction sale and its confirmation could be sustained on the strength of an interim order passed in an earlier appeal which was later dismissed as withdrawn.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal could be entertained and relief granted in the absence of the mandatory pre-deposit and when the relief sought did not include setting aside of the auction proceedings and sale.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required compliance with the prescribed pre-deposit under the relevant rules before the challenge could be entertained. The relief clause in the appeal was confined to setting aside the confirmation of sale and the sale certificate, yet the tribunal granted broader relief by setting aside the auction proceedings themselves. A court or tribunal cannot grant a relief not specifically prayed for where such relief travels beyond the pleaded case and would prejudice the affected party.

Conclusion: The challenge before the Tribunal ought not to have been entertained in the absence of compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit, and the tribunal could not lawfully grant relief beyond the pleadings.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction sale and its confirmation could be sustained on the strength of an interim order passed in an earlier appeal which was later dismissed as withdrawn.

Analysis: Once the earlier appeal was withdrawn, the interim order passed therein ceased to operate and merged in the final disposal. Any subsequent action based solely on that interim protection could not survive. Consequential proceedings founded on such interim protection were therefore liable to fall. The subsequent compromise entered into after the impugned setting aside order could not validate the earlier flawed process.

Conclusion: The auction sale and confirmation could not be sustained on the basis of the earlier interim order after dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable in law and were quashed, with the writ petition succeeding and the petitioner obtaining the consequential reliefs flowing from that result.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot grant relief beyond the pleadings or entertain a challenge without compliance with a mandatory statutory condition, and an interim order in an appeal that is later withdrawn ceases to survive and cannot sustain consequential action.

---