Decided on August 23,2006



Arunabha Barua, - (1.) THE matter relates to an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which shall be referred to hereinafter as "the RDDBFI Act" for short.
(2.) The applicant-appellant, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the impugned order of the D.R.T. dated 3rd February, 2005 which had refused to set aside the ex parte order. It had nothing to do as such with the merits of the main case with regard to the determination of debt. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act applies to those appeals where order is made determining the debt either under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act or under Rule 12(5) directing the defendant to pay the amount determined. It has been further submitted that it was an application simplicitor for setting aside the ex parte order and the instant appeal has been filed only by challenging the impugned order and, therefore, there is no need to comply with the provision of Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for applicant has cited two important judgments of the D.R.A.T., Delhi. The one is Kailash Chand Nagpal v. Corporation Bank II (2004) BC 1 : 2004(1) Bank C.L.R. 416 (DRAT, Del.), The other is Motia Rani v. Punjab National Bank I (2004) BC 170 (DRAT) : 2004(1) Bank C.L.R. 352 (DRAT, Del.).
(3.) THE respondent-Bank has filed reply/objection to the application under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act. THE gist of the submission of the learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank is that the applicant/appellant is one of the certificate debtors and there is no legal provision for exemption of the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act by the certificate debtor/appellant by simply saying that the certificate debtor/appellant being a Government owned unit is exempted from paying the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the Act. It is submitted that, at any rate, being a certificate debtor by preferring an appeal as an aggrieved person, the pre-deposit has to be made before the appeal itself can be entertained.;

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