Refund of a conditional deposit must first be sought from the Recovery Officer under the DRT’s order.

The petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution to refund a conditional deposit of ₹80,00,000 made in S.A. No. 294 of 2011, with interest.

By order dated 20 November 2023, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) recorded the parties’ arrangement: after the bank obtained physical possession of the property and filed a memo confirming possession, the Recovery Officer was to notify the respondents and make the necessary order for refund of the deposit, together with interest earned.

The petitioner stated that possession was handed over on 8 July 2025 and that a memo was filed but not accepted.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had not filed the necessary application before the Recovery Officer.

1. Whether the petitioner could obtain a writ directing refund of the deposit without first filing the necessary application before the Recovery Officer under the DRT’s order dated 20 November 2023.

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to approach the Recovery Officer to seek release of the deposit in accordance with that order.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to issue writs, including writs in the nature of mandamus.

The court applied the directions in the DRT’s order dated 20 November 2023: upon confirmation that the bank had taken physical possession, the Recovery Officer was to serve notice on the respondents and pass the necessary order for refund of the deposit with subsequent interest.

The DRT’s order referred to possession being taken pursuant to orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

The DRT had already prescribed the procedure for seeking repayment: the petitioner was to place the relevant request before the Recovery Officer, who would then act in accordance with the DRT’s directions.

Although the petitioner asserted that possession had been handed over, she had not filed the necessary application before that officer.

The High Court therefore considered it appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the remedy specified in the DRT’s order rather than obtain a direct refund order in the writ petition.

The application is to be considered on its merits in accordance with the DRT’s order dated 20 November 2023; the High Court did not itself order repayment.