UCO BANK Vs. NARAYAN CHANDRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the UCO Bank, its authorisd officer and its Chief Manager at Buxarah Branch, - the Petitioners - have challenged the judgment and order dated 28th July, 2009 whereby the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (for short the 2 'Appellate Tribunal') while allowing the application under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Act' for short) had exempted the opposite party, that is the borrower, from making any further deposit for the purpose of entertaining the appeal for disposal on merits on the ground that it is beyond the statutory limit prescribed under the Act. Submission was as in Section 18(1) of the Act the legislature has consciously incorporated a condition of predeposit for preferring an appeal which has nothing to do with exercising the power under Section 13 of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deposit of an amount is a condition precedent for preferring an appeal and such deposit is to be made with the Appellate Tribunal and not with the Bank. Predeposit of preferring an appeal cannot be equated with the satisfaction of the debt as the predeposit will be lying with the Appellate Tribunal subject to the pendency of the appeal which cannot be appreciated by the borrower in satisfaction of its debt. Since the language of Section 18(1) is clear and unambiguous, order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned senior advocate had relied on the following judgments in support of his submission, which are as under:

(2.) Mr. Pinakiranjan Mitra, learned Advocate for the opposite party referring to Sections 13(4), 17 and 18 submitted that a conjoint reading shows that the Act postulates determination of the amount due. However, in the instant case since the amount is yet to be determined, appeal without deposit as contemplated under second proviso to Section 18 of the Act can be made. Reliance was placed on the following judgments, which are as under:

(3.) The question to be considered is whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order exempting the opposite party, that is the borrower, from making any predeposit on an application under Section 18(1) of the Act for the purpose of entertaining the appeal.