Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) The petitioners question the propriety of an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal requiring a pre-deposit to be made as condition precedent to entertaining an appeal arising out of an interlocutory order passed in proceedings instituted under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
(2.) The petitioners first refer to the judgment in Mardia Chemicals Limited reported at (2004) 4 SCC 311, that held at paragraph 60 of the report, that the requirement of a pre-deposit under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 rendered the remedy under such provision illusory and nugatory. The petitioners say that the same logic should hold for Section 18 of the said Act.
(3.) The petitioners also rely on a judgment reported at (2013) 4 CHN (Cal) 270 which dealt with the appeal provisions in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Section 20 of the Act of 1993 recognises the right of appeal from every order passed by a Debts Recovery Tribunal but Section 21 of the 1993 Act requires the deposit of a part of the amount of debt due in certain cases when filing the appeal. On an interpretation of the right of appeal and in what situations the deposit would be required to be made, it was held that the wording of Section 21 of 1993 Act limited the class of persons required to make the deposit in terms thereof to only those from whom a debt had been determined by the Tribunal to be due under Section 19 of the 1993 Act. Thus, the appeal and deposit provisions in Sections 20 and 21 of the 1993 Act were read to imply that the deposit under Section 21 would not have to be made unless the appellant was a person against whom a determination had been made by the Tribunal that a quantum of debt was due from him to any bank or financial institution. ;