Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1198 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - SARFAESI Act - default in making repayment of loan - whether the order dated 13th January, 2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on merits of the appeal in violation of second and third provisos below Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, becomes non-est for lack in inherent jurisdiction? HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is already an adjudication by this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 5005 of 2012 on 9th March, 2015 to which the petitioner and the respondents in the present case were parties. The question involved was whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant a complete waiver of pre-deposit. After taking into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in Narayan Chandra Ghose v. UCO Bank [2011 (3) TMI 1478 - SUPREME COURT], this Court has held that though a discretionary power has been conferred on the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 18 to determine the amount of deposit as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal, the discretion is not an absolute one, but a limited one, and the Tribunal is not competent to reduce the amount of deposit below twenty-five per cent of the debt. The Court held that Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has misguided itself on the clear mandate of law and wrongly granted complete waiver of pre-deposit of the amount. Thus the second proviso below sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is of a mandatory nature. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal does not get its jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits unless there is a compliance of requirement of at least third proviso below Sub-section (1) of Section 18. If there is a failure to comply with such requirement, the appeal itself becomes incompetent, leaving no jurisdiction with the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to consider and decide it on merits. It is not an error in exercise of the jurisdiction but the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits. The decision of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal rendered on 13th January, 2014 in Appeal No. 135 of 2011 on merits of the matter cannot be sustained and the same is required to be quashed and set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|