Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Provided also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five percent of debt referred to in the second proviso."

The power to reduce pre deposit of half of debt due, in terms of second proviso is restricted to 25%, by virtue of third proviso.

14. Section 2 (ha) of the SARFAESI Act defines 'debt' as under:-

"debt" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of section 2 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993;

15. Thus, definition of 'debt' as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Recovery of Debt Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, stands ingrafted in the Act of 2002. Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1993 of the RDDB Act reads as under:-

"debt" means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank of a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application;]
18. On a plain reading of the 2nd proviso to section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act read with the definition under the word "debt" as defined in section 2(g) of the RDDB Act, it is clear that before an appeal can be entertained by the DRAT, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount of debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors or as determined by the DRT whichever is less. If there is no determination of the debt by the DRT under the provisions of the RDDB Act, then the borrower would have to deposit 50% of the amount of debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors.

18. The Judgement of Delhi High Court in Poonam Mansani also fails to take note to the definition of debt. In para 23 of the judgement of the M.R.B Road Construct(Supra), this aspect is noticed in the following words:-

"23. The second judgment relied upon by Mr Shah was a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Poonam Manshani.2 It appears from the said decision that the Delhi High Court has taken a view that the expression "amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less" would have to be determined ignoring the interest component. On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid decision, we find no reference in the same to the definition of the word "debt" as defined under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. As mentioned earlier, the word "debt" means any liability inclusive of interest claimed as due from any person by a bank or financial institution during the course of any business activity 2 AIR 2010 DELHI 28 undertaken by the said bank or financial institution. When interest is specifically included in the definition of the word "debt", we see no reason why the same ought to be excluded whilst determining the amount that is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the figure to be deposited by the borrower under the 2nd proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. In fact, on a perusal of the said judgment, we do not find any reason given for making such an exclusion. We, therefore, with great respect to the Delhi High Court, are unable to agree with the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision."