9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether permission of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is required for a Bank or Financial Institution to invoke section 13B of the Securitisation Act after the insertion of the proviso to section 19 of the Enforcement of Security Interests and Recovery of Debts Laws Amendment Act, 2004? Analysis: The case involved a dispute where the Bank of India filed for recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and simultaneously invoked section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. The petitioners challenged this action, arguing that permission from the Debt Recovery Tribunal was necessary post the Amendment Act of 2004. The respondents contended that the proviso to section 19 of the RDB Act did not bar invoking the Securitisation Act without Tribunal permission. The court referred to previous judgments and highlighted that multiple remedies for recovery could coexist. The court emphasized that the proviso in question was procedural, not substantive, and did not mandate Tribunal permission before invoking the Securitisation Act. The court examined the amended section 19(1) of the RDB Act, which outlines the application procedure before the Tribunal for debt recovery. The provisos added by the Amendment Act of 2004 were deemed to inform the Tribunal of the intent to utilize the Securitisation Act, without mandating permission for invoking it. The court clarified that the Tribunal's power was limited to granting or refusing permission for withdrawal of applications, not preventing invocation of the Securitisation Act. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal could only decide on withdrawal requests, without the authority to stop the Bank or Financial Institution from using the Securitisation Act. The court further highlighted that the Tribunal's role was to grant or refuse permission for withdrawal of applications, with no power to restrict invoking the Securitisation Act. The judgment concluded that neither before nor after the Amendment Act of 2004 was Tribunal permission necessary for invoking the Securitisation Act. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the notices issued by the Bank under section 13 and rule 9 of the Rules, 2004. The judgment upheld the quashing of another notice by the single Judge, leading to the dismissal of the writ appeal for lacking merits.
|
