SUTAPA CHATTERJEE Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal issue that has arisen is whether the requirement of a pre-deposit to prefer an appeal as recognised in Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has to be met in case of every appeal under Section 20 of the Act from every order passed by any Debts Recovery Tribunal if the appellant were a person against whom a money claim is made by a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks or financial institutions under the said Act. The matter is of some importance since the answer to the question may have the undesirable effect of opening the floodgates for any or every order of a Debts Recovery Tribunal to be subjected to a frivolous appeal with the oblique motive of stalling the adjudicatory and recovery proceedings before the tribunal.

(2.) The facts of the present matter are not of much consequence in the context of the legal issue, but need to be noticed only for the purpose of appreciating the circumstances in which the present question arises. The opposite party No.1 bank instituted proceedings under Section 19 of the said Act before a Debts Recovery Tribunal in Kolkata against, inter alia, the petitioners herein. Upon the matter ripening for trial, the petitioners herein applied before the tribunal seeking permission to cross-examine the bank's witness. From the rejection of such application by the tribunal, the petitioners herein sought to prefer an appeal and, for such purpose, applied before the appellate tribunal for waiver of the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the Act. The petitioners insist that such application was required to be filed in keeping with the practice of the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal allowed the application by requiring a sum of Rs.3 lakh to be deposited as the condition precedent for entertaining the appeal.

(3.) A previous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was carried from the appellate order of pre-deposit passed on September 7, 2012. During the pendency of such previous petition, the appellate tribunal accommodated the petitioners on a couple of occasions, but by the order of October 16, 2012 declined to entertain the appeal for the non-compliance of the order for predeposit. Both the orders of September 7, 2012 and October 16, 2012 have been assailed in the present proceedings.