Smt. Pothula Lakshmi Vs A.O (DRAT Kolkata)
The appeal arose against an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The appellant challenged the impugned order despite an interim order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the DRT in her favour. Her grievance was that although she was neither a borrower nor a guarantor, the DRT directed her to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs in two equal instalments.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the issue as to whether the securitisation applicant is a borrower or guarantor is to be examined by the DRT at the time of hearing of the matter. It noted that the interim order had been passed in favour of the appellant with certain conditions, and the DRT had taken a lenient view while imposing the deposit requirement.
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal held that the appeal lacked merit. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage in limine. The interlocutory application, if any, was also disposed of. No order as to costs was passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF DRAT KOLKATA
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
2. It is a peculiar case wherein despite an interim order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned DRT in favour of the appellant, she is challenging the impugned order by preferring instant appeal. Appellant’s only grievance is that although appellant is neither borrower nor guarantor, learned DRT has passed the impugned order directing her to deposit Rs.20.00 lakhs in two equal installments.
