CANARA BANK Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th September, 2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and sought a declaration that it is entitled to commission at the rate of 3% of the value of the guarantees issued by it in favour of the Prothonotary and Senior Master at the request of M/s. Shah Thakur and Sons.

(2.) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are M/s. Manish Estate Private Limited and M/s. Shah Diagnostics Institute Private Limited Respondent Nos.4 to 7 (in the title through inadvertence two respondents have been arrayed as respondent No.4) are individuals who had guaranteed the amounts due and payable by respondent No.3 to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was the owner of an immovable property in Mumbai. The property was mortgaged with the petitioner as security for repayment of the facilities sanctioned by the petitioner to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is the sister concern of respondent No.2.

(3.) The question of law raised by the petitioner admits of no difficulty. The question, if answered in the petitioner's favour, would have the most alarming effect on the provisions of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "RDDB Act") and, in turn, on the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We have, therefore, dealt with the issue in detail.