ORDER
Pratibha Upasani, J. (Chairperson)
1. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 5/8/2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai in Original Application No. 15/2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer, after hearing both the sides and after going through the material ordered issuance of interim recovery certificate as per the provisions of Rule 12(5) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 for amount of Rs. 17.96 crores against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, but in favour of the applicant Bank. Today the application for waiver of deposit as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is being argued.
2. I have heard Mr. R.O. Agarwal for the appellants so also Mr. Sayyed appearing for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also, gone through the proceedings including the impugned judgment and Order so also application for waiver of deposit and the reply filed thereto by the applicant Bank.
3. Since what is being argued today before me is an application for waiver of deposit, I refrain from making any comments about the merits of the matter. However, even at a cursory glance of the impugned judgment and order, it will be revealed that there does not appear to have a strong prima facie case in favour of the defendants. Partial recovery certificate is ordered to be issued as per Rule 12(5) of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. As per this Rule, where a defendants makes an admission of the full or part of the amount of debt due to a Bank or financial institution, the Tribunal shall Order such defendant to pay the amount to the extent of the admission by the applicant within a period of one month from the date of such Order failing which the Tribunal may issue a certificate in accordance with Section 19 of the Act to the extent of amount of debt due admitted by the defendant.
4. Mr. Aggarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that his clients were not required to pay any amount as per the provisions of Section 21 of the RDB Act by way of pre-deposit of 75% of the amount as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19, because the impugned judgment and Order was not passed under Section 19 of RDB Act but under Rule 12(5) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
5. This contention of the learned Advocate cannot be accepted because though Rule 12(5) empowers the Tribunal to pass an Order on the basis of admission, ultimately issuance of certificate is in accordance with Section 19 of the Act only to the extent of amount of debt admitted by the defendants.
6. Mr. Agarwal further argued that impugned judgment and Order was bad because in the operative portion of the order, the learned Presiding Officer had not given one month’s lime as envisaged by Rule 12(5) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
7. This contention of the learned Advocate also has to be discarded because operative portion of the Order does not say that the interim recovery certificate is to be issued instantaneously. It does mean that it is to be issued in accordance with law and when issuance of recovery certificate is ordered as per Rule 12(5) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, it follows that the certificate is to be issued in accordance with law that means within a period of one month as prescribed by the said Rule only.
8. Now coming to the application for waiver itself nothing is stated with respect to the financial constraints of the appellants. There is no statement in the application that they are unable to deposit any amount towards compliance of the provisions of Section 21 of the RDB Act. Whatever is stated in the said application is only with respect to above stated two points canvassed by Mr. Agarwal, with which I have already dealt with and have been rejected. The appellants are dealing in real estate and steel industries and they have not come out with any case of financial difficulties. I therefore do not see any reason to grant them complete waiver of amount of the 75% of the amount which they are mandatorily required to deposit as per the provisions of Section 21 of the RDB Act. Taking overall view of the matter, ends of justice will he met if the appellants are directed to deposit 50% of the amount of Rs. 17.96 crores within eight weeks from today with the Registrar of this Appellate Tribunal, Accordingly, following Order is passed:
ORDER
The appellants to deposit with the Registrar of this Appellate Tribunal 50% of Rs. 17.96 crores within eight weeks from today.
Needless to say, if the amount is not deposited within prescribed period, the appeal to stand rejected without any further recourse.
Stay to the recovery proceedings, till next date. However, administrative work/paper work may go on and no coercive steps be taken.
Misc. Application Nos. 531 A/03 and 585/03 are disposed of accordingly.
Stand over for compliance to 7.5.2004.