Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. No other decision of this Court was cited before me. Different Benches of this Court appear to have expressed different opinions with regard to the question whether the deposit of amount equivalent to 50% of recoverable dues is a condition precedent for entertaining revision under section 154 of MCS Act in which recovery certificate issued under section 101 is not directly under challenge but only a consequential action is assailed. As stated above, in Writ Petition 810 of 2005, the learned Single Judge has held that when a revision is preferred against a recovery under Rule 107(6), the compliance of provision of sub-section (2A) of 154 cannot be insisted upon. In Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank case (supra), another learned Single Judge has held that even in such an eventuality the compliance with the provision of sub-section (2A) of 154 is mandatory. In view of these conflicting decision, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to refer the following question for decision by a larger bench in accordance with law :

14. In Pravin Yashwant Dhanawade (supra), the revision was allowed on the ground that it was not mandatory to comply with the requirement of Section 154(2A), as the revision was confined only to the alleged non- compliance with Rule 107(6) and did not challenge the recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Act.

15. In Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) while adjudicating a challenge to the order of the Revisional Authority entertaining a revision despite non-compliance with Section 154(2A) of the Act, it was held that such revision proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law. It was observed that the revision could not have been entertained when there was non-compliance with Section 154 (2A) merely on the ground that the revision did not directly challenge the recovery certificate but only questioned the consequential or derivative actions. Applying the principle of purposive construction to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, His Lordship held that the rigours of Section wp 4118-14.doc 154(2A) would extend to revision applications filed by persons against whom a recovery certificate under Section 101 has been issued, whether such revision challenges the recovery certificate itself or only the derivative action taken pursuant thereto, with a view to obstruct or interdict the recovery proceedings.

"5. In order to curb the practice of delaying the recovery process as a result of defaulters resorting to the practice of filing revision applications, Government has decided to amend section 154 of the Act suitably, so as to provide for the depositing of fifty per cent, amount of the recoverable dues by the applicant, at the time of filing such revision application."

20. A plain reading of Section 154 (2A) refers to Revision only against Recovery Certificate (and its consequential decisions and orders) issued by the Registrar u/s. 101 and not to Revision in respect of Orders passed under Rule 107 which are in the nature of execution of Recovery Certificate under Rule 107. The language of Section 154 (2A) of the said Act being plain and unambiguous, His Lordship in Greater Bombay Co- 5 (2003) 6 SCC 516 wp 4118-14.doc operative Bank Ltd. (supra), by reading orders passed under Rule 107 into sub-section (2A) of Section 154 of the said Act has supplied Casus Omissus. In doing so, His Lordship has resorted to external aids of interpretation i.e. has relied upon Statement and Object for bringing an amendment to Section 154 by way of sub-section (2A). The said exercise is based upon settled principle of interpretation as expounded in Heydon's Rule of Interpretation.

(emphasis supplied)

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it amply clear that casus wp 4118-14.doc omissus cannot be supplied except in cases of clear necessity and when reasons for it are found within four corners of the statute itself.

29. Analysing the issue raised in this reference in the light of the parameters governing the application of the doctrine of casus omissus, it is our considered opinion that a literal interpretation of sub-section (2A) of Section 154 results in an unduly narrow construction of the expression "recovery certificate" employed therein. Such an interpretation would revive the very mischief which the legislature intended to remedy by introducing sub-section (2A) to Section 154, namely, to deter litigants from filing frivolous revision applications with the sole object of stalling recovery proceedings, to the detriment of the creditor bank. Exempting an applicant from compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement of depositing fifty per cent of the recoverable dues prior to filing a revision application, merely on the ground that the revision does not directly challenge the recovery certificate but only assails a derivative or consequential action, as held in Pravin Yashwant Dhanawade (supra), cannot, in our view, be the correct interpretation of sub-section (2A) of Section 154. We therefore are in respectful agreement with view propounded by His Lordship in Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra).