9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition") and CWP-COM-174 of 2017 now treated as CWP No. 17539 of 2017 titled as "Jatinder Mohan Mittal and another Vs. Debts Recovery Appellant Tribunal and Others" (hereinafter referred to as "the second petition") as both the petitions are interconnected and can be disposed of by a common order. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the first petition is filed by the guarantor and the second petition is filed by the auction purchaser. The property in dispute is House No. 3096, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh which was purchased by the auction purchaser for a sum of Rs. 4,34,50,000/- in the auction conducted by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as " the DRT-I"). Though, there is a chequered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction to pass an order of complete waiver and now it is mandatory either to ask for deposit 50% of the debts due or it may be reduced to 25% after recording reasons. Admittedly, it is needless to mention that the appeal before the DRAT is pending and the primary issue involved in this case is as to whether the DRAT had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 26.12.2016 granting complete waiver of the pre-deposit for the purpose of entertainment of the appeal on any ground whatsoever? The other issue involved is as to whether the appeal having been filed before the commencement of the amendment and the order has been passed after the amendment has come then in such circumstances whether the appellate authority was obliged to look int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duce 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." There is no dispute that the Appeal No. 76 of 2016 was filed when the un-amended provision of law was in operation. It is also not in dispute that the impugned order was passed on 26.12.2016 when the amendment had already commenced. Thus, arguments have been raised by the guarantor/petitioner of the first petition that the amended provisions of Section 21 of the Act would apply even at the time when the order was passed on 26.12.2016 as according to him, the amended law cannot be retrospective. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in this regard and are of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
