Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 738 (KAR)

ANAMIKA v. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

2000-11-14

A.V.SRINIVASA REDDY, ASHOK BHAN

body2000
ASHOK BHAN, J. ( 1 ) FOR expeditious disposal of cases regarding recovery of money due to the financial institutions and the banks, Parliament of India passed an Act called the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, "the Act" ). Under the Act, Debt Recovery Tribunals (for short, "the Tribunal") were created at various levels to try the suits filed by the banks and financial institutions in which the claim was more than rupees ten lakhs. By operation of law, various cases which were pending" in different civil courts in the country were ordered to be transferred to the Tribunals. ( 2 ) THE second respondent-Corporation Bank (for short, "the bank"), at Bangalore filed a suit in o. S. No. 4037 of 1989 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,76,654 against the appellants in the City civil Court, Bangalore. Soon after the coming into force of the Act and keeping in view the mandate contained therein, the proceedings in the suit were transferred to the Tribunal which was registered as O. A. No. 1170 of 1995. The Tribunal, on final adjudication passed an order on january 31, 2000, determining the amount payable by the appellants to the respondent-bank. ( 3 ) AGAINST the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellants filed an appeal before the Appellate tribunal constituted under the Act. Under Section 21 of the Act, the judgment-debtor is required to deposit 75 per cent. of the amount due to the respondent-bank for the appeal to be registered. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 21 of the Act without depositing 75 per cent. of the amount due to the bank. The Appellate Tribunal permitted the appellant to deposit the amount on or before October 19, 2000, which was later on extended to December 4, 2000. ( 4 ) THE appellants filed the writ petition seeking a declaration that the requirement of pre-deposit of 75 per cent. of the debt as determined by the Tribunal as a condition precedent to the maintaining of an appeal as contained in Section 21 of the Act was inapplicable to cases which were first instituted in civil courts and thereafter transferred to the Tribunal for determination of the liability. of the debt as determined by the Tribunal as a condition precedent to the maintaining of an appeal as contained in Section 21 of the Act was inapplicable to cases which were first instituted in civil courts and thereafter transferred to the Tribunal for determination of the liability. This declaration was sought on the ground that the right of appeal granted under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a vested right which could not be taken away by transfer of the case from the civil court to the Tribunal. That the condition imposed by Section 21 requiring the judgment-debtor to deposit 75 per cent. of the amount due as condition precedent for maintainability of the appeal would not be applicable to cases which were first instituted in the civil court and thereafter transferred to the Tribunal. The right of appeal being a vested right, it could not be taken away by the provisions of the Act, In support of the proposition canvassed, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon two judgments of the supreme Court in the cases of Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1953] 4 STC 114 (SC) and K. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, AIR1995 SC 1012 , JT1994 (6 )SC 182 , 1994 (4 )SCALE192 , (1994 )5 SCC593 , [1994 ]supp3 scr405. ( 5 ) THE learned single judge did not accept this contention and held that once the suit was transferred to the Tribunal under Section 31 of the Act, then the order of the Tribunal would be subject to an appeal under the provisions of that Act alone and no appeal would lie under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 6 ) WE agree with the view taken by the single judge. Once the case was transferred to the tribunal by operation of law the final adjudication is made by the Tribunal, then the right of appeal or revision would be governed under the provisions of that Act alone. The appellant at no point of time bad questioned the validity of transfer of proceedings to the Tribunal. After the transfer of the case to the Tribunal, right of appeal or revision would be covered under the provisions of that Act alone and not under any other Act or provision of law. The appellant at no point of time bad questioned the validity of transfer of proceedings to the Tribunal. After the transfer of the case to the Tribunal, right of appeal or revision would be covered under the provisions of that Act alone and not under any other Act or provision of law. The judgments cited before the single judge which were referred to before us as well, are clearly distinguishable. The same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The case before the Supreme court in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1953] 4 STC 114 (SC), pertained to the amendment of the Sales Tax Act making the right of appeal subject to deposit of tax. The Supreme Court took the view that the right of appeal being a vested right, could not be taken away and permitted the assessee to file an appeal without depositing the tax determined by the assessing authority. In K. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, AIR1995 sc 1012 , JT1994 (6 )SC 182 , 1994 (4 )SCALE192 , (1994 )5 SCC593 , [1994 ]supp3 SCR405 , the Constitution Bench was considering as to whether the provisions of Section 23 (1a) of the land Acquisition Act was retrospective in its operation. It was held that the benefit under section 23 (1a) of the Land Acquisition Act would not be applicable with retrospective effect to the proceedings which were pending. It was prospective in operation. Neither of these cases pertains to the transfer of cases from one jurisdiction to another. The case before us is transfer of cases from the jurisdiction of one court to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. After the transfer of the cases, the procedure prescribed under the Act would be applicable to the parties which would include the right of appeal and revision as well. The appellants cannot claim that they continue to be governed in so far as the right of appeal is concerned under the Code of Civil Procedure. All conditions coupled with the right of appeal as provided under the provisions of the Act have to be necessarily complied with. No merit. Dismissed.