Pre-deposit under SARFAESI must reflect borrower objections, creditor response, and mortgage terms when assessing amount due.

For fixing pre-deposit under the second and third provisos to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the Appellate Tribunal must consider the secured creditor's claimed debt in light of the borrower's Section 13(3A) reply, the creditor's rejoinder, and the mortgage terms where they indicate the extent of liability. A mortgagor falls within the wider borrower concept under the SARFAESI framework, and documents showing a distinct, lesser, or no liability are relevant to the amount due. The pre-deposit determination was therefore required to be revisited, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether, while determining the pre-deposit under the second and third provisos to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the Appellate Tribunal was required to consider the borrower's reply under Section 13(3A), the secured creditor's rejoinder, and the mortgage terms indicating the mortgagor's limited liability.

Analysis: The expression "amount of debt due as claimed by the secured creditor" in the second proviso to Section 18(1) was held to include the amount due from a mortgagor under the mortgage, since a mortgagor falls within the wider concept of borrower under the SARFAESI framework. The statutory scheme of Section 13(3A) requires the secured creditor to consider objections or representations raised in response to a demand notice and to communicate its response. Where that response specifies a distinct quantum of liability, or indicates lesser or no liability, there is no reason to exclude it from consideration while fixing the pre-deposit figure. The mortgage deed and the exchange of notices were therefore relevant materials for determining the amount due from the petitioner.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit determination had to be reconsidered by taking into account the petitioner's reply, the bank's rejoinder, and the connected documents; the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision on pre-deposit.

---