S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C)No.3068 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.3068 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

                  “a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing Ext.P7 attachment order dated 13.01.2025 issued by the 1st respondent;

                  b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the 1st respondent to refrain from interfering with the custody or disposition of the pre-deposit amount held by the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai, in RA(SA)No.5 of 2024;

                  c. Direct the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai, to release the pre-deposit amount of Rs.3,95,50,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Ninety-Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) to the petitioner forthwith, as the appeal in RA(SA)No.5 of 2024 has been dismissed and no lawful appropriation or attachment of the pre-deposit has occurred.”

3. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner was the 2nd appellant in R.A. (S.A) No.5 of 2024 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (‘DRAT’ for short), Chennai. The said appeal was one filed against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), in O.A.No.76 of 2023, concerning the sale held on 30.07.2022. To comply with the statutory requirements of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short), the 1st respondent, along with the 1st appellant therein, namely M/s. Annam Steels (P) Ltd. was directed by the DRAT, Chennai, in I.A.No.294 of 2023 to deposit a sum of Rs.3,95,50,000/-. In compliance with this direction, the said amount was deposited by the 1st respondent and the 1st appellant in S.A.No.5 of 2024 by way of a demand draft dated 21.12.2023 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank. Later, the appeal was dismissed by the DRAT on 31.07.2024. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed Ext.P1 interlocutory application bearing I.A.No.561 of 2024 before the DRAT seeking release of the pre-deposit amount. When Ext.P1 interlocutory application was taken up for consideration by the DRAT, the respondents 2 and 3-appellants herein objected to the same, stating that the Tribunal was considering an attachment of the pre-deposit amount. Relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Axis Bank v. SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd. [(2016) 12 SCC 18], the 1st respondent contended that once the appeal is dismissed, he is entitled to the refund of the pre-deposit, unless it has been lawfully appropriated, attached or adjusted with the consent of the depositor, none of which had occurred in that case. The 1st respondent further contended that the appellants-respondents 2 and 3 failed to initiate proceedings under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act r/w Rule 11 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, for the attachment of the pre-deposit. In the absence of such proceedings, any claim over the pre-deposit was legally unsustainable. It was also emphasised that the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to override the authority of the Appellate Tribunal concerning the custody and disposition of the pre-deposit.

                  3.1. After several adjournments, on 09.01.2025, the matter was heard in detail by the DRAT, and orders were reserved. The 1st respondent, in the meanwhile, filed detailed objections before the 2nd respondent, Recovery Officer, in response to the prayer for attachment of the pre-deposit amount made by the appellants. The said objection dated 26.12.2024 filed before the 2nd respondent is produced as Ext.P6 in the writ petition. However, the 2nd respondent, by Ext.P7 order dated 13.01.2025, passed an attachment order against the pre-deposit made in the appeal before the DRAT. Contending that the 2nd respondent has acted beyond its jurisdiction by attaching the pre-deposit amount, which was statutorily deposited by the 1st respondent solely for appellate purposes, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition.

4. On behalf of the appellants, a counter affidavit dated 03.02.2025 was filed in the writ petition, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R2(a) to R2(c) documents.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by Annexure A1 judgment dated 04.02.2025. In that judgment, the learned Single Judge found that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner has an appellate remedy against Ext.P7 order. Therefore, it would be only appropriate that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner approaches the Tribunal against Ext.P7 order. In order to facilitate the 1st respondent to approach the Tribunal, the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 order were deferred for a period of two weeks. Challenging Annexure A1 judgment, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed W.A.No.357 of 2025. By Annexure A2 judgment dated 03.03.2025, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeal by setting aside Annexure A1 judgment and the writ petition was remanded for fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge. The parties were granted liberty to raise all available contentions before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, by the present impugned judgment dated 08.10.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, directing the Tribunal to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A.No.561 of 2024 in R.A.(S.A) No.5 of 2024 in accordance with law. Based on the orders to be passed in the said application, the Tribunal was permitted to make further directions to the parties.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in Annexure A2 judgment dated 03.03.2025, the learned Single Judge was directed to consider the writ petition afresh, since in Annexure A1 judgment, the contentions of the parties were not considered on merits. In Annexure A2 judgment, the Division Bench observed that the contentions raised by the bank are vital in nature as far as the disputes involved are concerned. In Annexure A2 judgment, the Division Bench further noted that whether the 1st respondent alone could maintain the writ petition is a serious issue. Likewise, the contention of the 1st respondent herein regarding non-availability of the appellate remedy under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act is also held as an issue deserving serious consideration. However, in the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2025, the learned Single Judge did not consider any of the aforesaid contentions as directed in Annexure A2 judgment. The learned counsel would submit that there is difference in the facts of the judgment in SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd [(2016) 12 SCC 18], and the present case is concerned, since in this case the appeal before the DRAT was already disposed of. The learned counsel further submitted that Ext.P7, being an order passed by the 2nd respondent, Recovery Officer of the Tribunal, the same can be challenged only by filing an O.P.(DRT) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As far as the authority of the 2nd respondent for recovery of money in the custody of another court is concerned, the learned counsel pointed out that as per Section 28(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the 2nd respondent may apply to the court in whose custody there is money belonging to the defendant for payment to him of the entire amount of such money, or if it is more than the amount of debt due, an amount sufficient to discharge the amount of the debt so due.

9. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that insolvency proceedings have been initiated in respect of M/s. Annam Steel Pvt. Ltd, in which the 1st respondent is the Director before the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai (‘NCLT’ for short), as C.P.(IB)/208(CHE)2023. Therefore, whatever recovery proceedings are initiated, the NCLT is also a necessary party to those proceedings. However, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent also conceded that the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge without considering the directions in Annexure A2 judgment of the Division Bench.

10. From Annexure A2 judgment, we notice that a Division Bench of this Court, after considering the materials placed on record and the rival submissions made at the Bar, arrived at a conclusion that in Annexure A1 judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 04.02.2025, none of the contentions raised by the parties was decided on merits. After holding that if the Division Bench proceed to pronounce upon those issues which were not considered and decided by the learned Single Judge, the same would result in deprivation of valuable opportunity of appeal to both sides, the Division Bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of Annexure A2 judgment of the Division Bench read thus;

                  “3. Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr.Praveen Hariharan submitted, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Axis Bank v. SBS Organics Private Limited and another that the order passed by the Recovery Officer was in direct conflict with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the deposit before the Tribunal is not a secured asset and on disposal of the appeal the pre-deposit should be returned to the Appellant. He hence argued that the impugned order of the Recovery Officer being obviously illegal the writ petition ought to have been entertained and allowed. Writ jurisdiction can be invoked even if statutory remedies are available when the impugned proceedings are ex facie illegal. The learned counsel further contended that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would lie against the order of the Recovery Officer is incorrect. He referred to Section 30 of the Act and contended that right of appeal is available under the said provision only against orders made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under Sections 25 to 28 of the Act. He submitted that the order of attachment issued by the Recovery Officer is not one passed under the provisions of Sections 25 to 28 and hence no appeal can be preferred under Section 30 of the Act. He therefore pleaded that the impugned judgment be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed.

                  4. The learned counsel for the Bank Mr.C.Ajith Kumar contended that the attempt of the Appellant is to avoid filing of statutory appeal as the same would involve making a pre- deposit. He vehemently contended that the Appellant had no locus to maintain the writ petition for the reason that in the appeal filed before the DRAT there were 22 Appellants. The private limited company, M/s.Annam Steels was the 1st Appellant and among the other Appellants another private limited company and an LLP were also there. Hence, he contended that the Appellant could not have approached this Court alone challenging the order of the Recovery Officer. He further submitted that though the said aspect was pointed out before the learned Single Judge the contention has not been addressed in the impugned judgment.

                  5. Some of the contentions above mentioned are vital in nature as far as the disputes involved are concerned. Whether the Appellant alone could maintain the writ petition is a serious issue. Likewise, contention of the Appellant regarding non-availability of the appellate remedy under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act is also an issue deserving serious consideration. If we proceed to pronounce upon these issues which were not considered and decided by the learned Single Judge, the same may result in deprivation of the valuable opportunity of appeal to both sides. If these aspects are considered by the learned Single Judge, the parties would not be deprived of the opportunity of re-agitating the issues in an intra-court appeal, if any of them is not satisfied with the outcome. Therefore it is appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and to remit the writ petition for fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge.

                  6. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside. The writ petition is remanded for fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge. Parties shall be at liberty to raise all available contentions before the learned Single Judge. Appeal is disposed of as above.”

11. The perusal of the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, shows that the consideration of the writ petition on merits, as directed in Annexure A2 judgment, is not done in the impugned judgment also. In such circumstances, we find no ground to sustain the present judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal.

12. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to again remit the writ petition for fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge in the light of the observations made in Annexure A2 judgment dated 03.03.2025.

                  In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.3068 of 2025 and the writ petition is remanded for fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge, as directed in Annexure A2 judgment dated 03.03.2025. It is made clear that the parties shall be at liberty to raise all available contentions before the learned Single Judge.