AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Brijesh Sethi, Chairperson
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Appellant has filed the present appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the learned DRT-II, Delhi in Appeal No.3/2023, dismissing the appellant's I.A for waiver of pre-deposited for the entertainment of appeal.
For the entertainment of the present appeal also, the appellant has to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit as envisaged under Section 21 of the RDB Act.
The learned counsel for the appellant states that as against a recovery certificate for Rs.3,70,30,391/- along with pendente lite and future interest @12% with quarterly rests, the Recovery Officer has sold the property and realised an amount of Rs.13,00,96,000/- and thereby a recovery of more than 50% of the debt due has been effected. Learned counsel further submits that at present appellant is not in a position to make any pre-deposit.
Heard. Section 21 of the RDB Act is clear and unambiguous and states that appeal cannot be entertained without the payment of pre-deposit. It runs as under:-
"21. Deposit of amount of debt due, on filing appeal.Where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent, of the amount of debt so due from him as determined by the Tribunal under section 19:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal my, for the reason to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to be deposited by such amount which shall not be less than twenty-five per cent. of the amount of such debt so due to be deposited under this section.
Thus, unless and until the appellant complies with the condition of predeposit, this Tribunal cannot entertain the appeal. What to speak of this Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ambuj A Kasiiwal & Ors, Civil Appeal No.538/2021, decided on 16.02.2021, has observed that even the Hon'ble High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion, which is against the mandatory requirement of the statutory provisions: The relevant para of the said judgment is re-produced as under:-
"14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances arising herein, when further amount is due and payable in discharge of the decree/recovery certificate issued by the DRT in favour of the appellant/Bank, the High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion which is against the mandatory requirement of the statutory provision as contained in Section 21, which is extracted above. In all cases fifty per cent of the deretal amount i.e. the debt due is to be deposited before the DRTAT as a mandatory requirement, but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded the deposit of at least twenty-five per cent of the debt due would be permissible, but not entire waiver. Therefore, any waiver of pre-deposit to the entire extent would be against the statutory provisions and, therefore, not sustainable in law. The order of the High Court is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
It is noticed that this Court while considering an analogous provision contained in Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI for short) relating to pre-deposit in order to avail the remedy of appeal has expressed a similar opinion in the case of Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others (2011) 4 SCC 548, which reads as hereunder:-
Section 18(1) of the Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. However, the right conferred under Section 18(1) is subject to the condition laid down in the second proviso thereto. The second proviso postulates that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. However, under the third proviso to the subsection, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to reduce the amount, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, to not less than twentyfive per cent of the debt, referred to in the second proviso. Thus, there is an absolute bar to entertainment of an appeal under Section 18 of the Act unless the condition precedent, as stipulated, is fulfilled. Unless the borrower makes, with the Appellate Tribunal, a pre deposit of fifty per cent of the debt due from him or determined, an appeal under the said provision cannot be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal. The language of the said proviso is clear and admits of no ambiguity.
It is well settled that when a Statute confers a right of appeal, while granting the right, the Legislature can impose conditions for the exercise of such right, so long as the conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions, rendering the right almost illusory. Bearing in mind the object of the Act, the conditions hedged in the said proviso cannot be said to be onerous. Thus, we hold that the requirement of pre deposit under subsection (1) of Section 18 of the Act is mandatory and there is no reason whatsoever for not giving full effect to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. In that view of the matter, no court, much less the Appellate Tribunal, a creature of the Act itself, can refuse to give full effect to the provisions of the Statute. We have no hesitation in holding that deposit under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under the said Section, the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in entertaining the appeal without directing the appellant to comply with the said mandatory requirement.
The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that as the amount of debt due had not been determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, appeal could be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal without insisting on pre deposit, is equally fallacious. Under the second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 18 of the Act the amount of fifty per cent, which is required to be deposited by the borrower, is computed either with reference to the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors or as determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. Obviously, where the amount of debt is yet to be determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the borrower, while preferring appeal, would be liable to deposit fifty per cent of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors.
Therefore, the condition of pre deposit being mandatory, a complete waiver of deposit by the appellant with the Appellate Tribunal, was beyond the provisions of the Act, as is evident from the second and third provisos to the said Section. At best, the Appellate Tribunal could have, after recording the reasons, reduced the amount of deposit of fifty per cent to an amount not less than twenty five per cent of the debt referred to in the second proviso. We are convinced that the order of the Appellate Tribunal, entertaining appellant's appeal without insisting on predeposit was clearly unsustainable and, therefore, the decision of the High Court in setting aside the same cannot be flawed." (emphasis supplied).
In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank (supra), since the appellant has not complied with the requirement of pre-deposit, appeal of the appellants cannot be entertained. It is, therefore, dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.