Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs Uco Bank & Ors on 18 March, 2011
"8. Section 18(1) of the Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. However, the right conferred under Section 18(1) is subject to the condition laid down in the second proviso thereto. The second proviso postulates that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. However, under the third proviso to the sub-section, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to reduce the amount, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, to not less than twenty-five percent of the debt, referred to in the second proviso. Thus, there is an absolute bar to entertainment of an appeal under Section 18 of the Act unless the condition precedent, as stipulated, is fulfilled. Unless the borrower makes, with the Appellate Tribunal, a pre-deposit of fifty percent of the debt due from him or determined, an appeal under the said provision cannot be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal. The language of the said proviso is clear and admits of no ambiguity. It is well-settled that when a statute confers a right of appeal, while granting the right, the Legislature can impose conditions for the exercise of such right, so long as the conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions, rendering the right almost illusory. Bearing in mind the object of the Act, the conditions hedged in the said proviso cannot be said to be onerous. Thus, we hold that the requirement of pre-deposit under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act is mandatory and there is no reason whatsoever for not giving full effect to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. In that view of the matter, no court, much less the Appellate Tribunal, a creature of the Act itself, can refuse to give full effect to the provisions of the Statute. We have no hesitation in holding that deposit under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under the said Section, the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in entertaining the appeal without directing the appellant to comply with the said mandatory requirement."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 14 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Others vs Narvir Singh And Others on 10 December, 2012
7. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, decisions made in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Narvir Singh, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 105, A.V.Sreenivasalu Naidu Vs. V.K.Nataraja Goundan and Another, reported in AIR 1955 Madras 461 and the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide common order, made in W.P.Nos.27520 of 2014 and 32716 of 2015, dated 09.02.2016, dismissed both the writ petitions.
Section 2 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
A.V. Sreenivasalu Naidu vs V.K. Nataraja Goundan And Anr. on 12 November, 1954
7. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, decisions made in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Narvir Singh, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 105, A.V.Sreenivasalu Naidu Vs. V.K.Nataraja Goundan and Another, reported in AIR 1955 Madras 461 and the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide common order, made in W.P.Nos.27520 of 2014 and 32716 of 2015, dated 09.02.2016, dismissed both the writ petitions.