Decided on March 12,2004



Pratibha Upasani, - (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. 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.
(3.) 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.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.