- (1.) The ambiguous language in which some statutes are drafted these days not only leaves room for conflicting interpretations but it may, at times, be an impediment to arresting the mischief which was sought to be achieved by the enactment. Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in its first limb uses the expression "by any order", which implies that every order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the said Act would be appellable, provided the appellant can demonstrate that he is a person aggrieved by such order. However, the second proviso to section 18(1) of the said Act mandates that a pre-deposit be made as a condition precedent to the receipt of the appeal and the third proviso gives the Appellate Tribunal the discretion to reduce the pre-deposit from 50 per cent of the amount claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less, to 25 per cent of such amount. It is necessary to notice the entirety of section 18 of the said Act: "18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.--(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed to an Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal: Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower: Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less: Provided also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five per cent of debt referred to in the second proviso. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and rules made thereunder."
(2.) It cannot be said that the second and third provisos operate only in respect of the final orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act and would not apply to interlocutory orders carried in appeal. The wording of the provisos precludes such interpretation. Yet, there are interlocutory orders of considerable significance that involve complex legal issues, and a bona fide appeal may be carried therefrom by any person aggrieved thereby without such person aggrieved being conclusively identified as the borrower within the meaning of the word in the said Act, or when the amount claimed from such person has not yet been determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and it is demonstrated that a substantial part of the claim has been discharged by payment or realised from the sale of one or more of the secured assets.
(3.) The petitioners herein obtained credit facilities from the opposite party bank. Following the bank's demand for repayment and steps taken under the said Act of 2002, the mortgaged property or hypothecated goods have been sold and some further amount repaid by the petitioners to the bank. From the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed on November 14, 2011, it cannot be gauged as to what may be the sum due from the petitioners to the bank, as would appear from the last two pages of such order. The question as to what would be the exact amount due from the petitioners to the bank, after adjusting the sale proceeds and taking into account the money repaid, did not fall for consideration in course of the order of the Tribunal dated November 14, 2011. The Tribunal noticed that the bank had claimed a sum in excess of Rs. 55 lakh from the petitioners herein; but the Tribunal was of the opinion that such amount would not be due, though some money could be due.;