SATISH TIWARI Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER SBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal issue that is canvassed is that if a provision is hedged with a condition, the statutory mandate has to be strictly construed and the condition attached to the exercise of the privilege by a class of persons should not be extended to other classes of persons entitled to the privilege. The question arises in the context of a pre-deposit being required to be made by an appellant under section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Section 18 of the Act of 2002 permits any person aggrieved by an order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Every appellant is required to pay a fee. The first proviso to the section provides for different fees being prescribed for appeals being preferred by different classes of persons. The second proviso to section 18 of the Act of 2002 mandates as follows:

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioners here are not borrowers within the definition of section 2(1)(f) of the Act of 2002. That implies that the petitioners are also not guarantors, for a guarantor is deemed to be a borrower within the relevant definition in the said Act.

(3.) The Appellate Tribunal has held in the order impugned that since the petitioners herein had applied under section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Tribunal and had carried the grievance in appeal, the petitioners were required to make the pre-deposit in terms of the second proviso to section 18 of the said Act. The Appellate Tribunal has treated the petitioners as borrowers. At the ad interim stage of the present proceedings, the petitioners were required to make the pre-deposit, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. It is the admitted position that the pre-deposit has now been made and the appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal.