Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1629 - HC - Indian LawsRequirement of pre-deposit - whether provision under Section 21 of RDDBI Act relating to pre-deposit for entertaining an appeal is applicable to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on an interim application filed under Rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1993? - existence of proper reasoning or not - HELD THAT:- A simple, literal construction is required to be applied to the provisions of Section 21 of the RDDBI Act. The reference to amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19 occurring in Section 21 is of significance. It is relevant and important because in the facts of the present case, the petitioners have raised issue that there was no determination done as per Section 19 of the RDDBI Act. Rule 12(5) cannot be separated in two parts. The said Rule clearly stipulates that on failure of the defendant to pay the amount to the extent of the admission within a period of one month from the date of order, a certificate in accordance with Section 19 of the RDDBI Act would be issued. The words “may issue a certificate” occurring in Rule 12 (5), according to the learned counsel, would mean that only in certain contingencies, the issuance of certificate could get delayed /postponed and a party to the proceeding may independently challenge issuance of certificate itself - A recovery certificate would amount to formal expression of the adjudication. The Act and the Rules do not contemplate separate proceedings to be initiated, much less, adjudicated for getting the recovery certificate issued. The process of adjudicating is required to be gone into, may be to limited extent or on an interim application, to find out the quantum of money to be due. Ordinarily, the final adjudication would take place upon conclusion of proceeding filed under Section 19 of the RDDBI Act. But, there could be interim adjudication of part of the claim, while the remaining adjudication of the balance of the claim is determined in a final judgment or order - It would not be permissible to read provisions of Rule 12(5) in a way to defeat the object of Sections 19 and 21 of the RDDBI Act. The Rules would not override the statutory provisions. It is elementary that the rules prescribed by a subordinate legislation cannot be in excess or in derogation of the statute under which it is made. The order passed by the DRT under Rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1993 amounts to an interim determination of the amount due. In the facts, the petitioners-borrowers/guarantors would be liable to pay an amount towards pre-deposit under the provisions of Section 21 of the RDDBI Act - if a person files an appeal to DRAT against an order passed by DRT under Rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1993, the provisions of Section 21 of the RDDBI Act gets attracted, irrespective of as to whether a recovery certificate was issued or not. Petition dismissed.
|