https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291452 Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act requires pre-deposit at the appellate stage, and its second and third provisos were treated as valid and applicable to a guarantor because the Act's definition of borrower includes a guarantor and guarantor liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under contract law. The challenge based on Mardia Chemicals was rejected because that ruling concerned pre-deposit at the original section 17 forum, not an appeal under section 18. The fact that the matter arose after rejection of a delay-condonation application did not displace the statutory appeal remedy, since the section 17 challenge remained subject to section 18. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291452 Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act requires pre-deposit at the appellate stage, and its second and third provisos were treated as valid and applicable to a guarantor because the Act's definition of borrower includes a guarantor and guarantor liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under contract law. The challenge based on Mardia Chemicals was rejected because that ruling concerned pre-deposit at the original section 17 forum, not an appeal under section 18. The fact that the matter arose after rejection of a delay-condonation application did not displace the statutory appeal remedy, since the section 17 challenge remained subject to section 18. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291452