9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a woman can be arrested and detained in civil prison in proceedings for recovery of debt certified by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legislative Framework and Definitions: The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act, 1993) establishes a Tribunal for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The term 'debt' is defined under section 2(g) to include any liability claimed as due from any person by a bank or financial institution. Section 22 specifies that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal are not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by principles of natural justice. 2. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Recovery Officer: The Recovery Officer has exclusive jurisdiction to execute orders as per sections 25 to 30 of the Act. Section 25 outlines the modes of recovery, including attachment and sale of the defendant's property, arrest and detention, and appointing a receiver. These modes are alternative, not exclusive, and the Recovery Officer can resort to one or more modes. 3. Supplementary Provisions and Application of Income-tax Act: Section 28 provides additional modes of recovery without prejudice to those in section 25. Section 29 applies certain provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, including the Second and Third Schedules, to the recovery process under the Act. This includes provisions relating to arrest and detention of defaulters. 4. Prohibition Against Arrest of Women: Clause 81 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act prohibits the arrest of women. The rationale behind this provision is rooted in societal norms and the special status accorded to women in the society. 5. Judicial Precedents and Interpretations: The High Court referred to the case of Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association, where the Supreme Court upheld the provisions of sections 25 and 28, stating they are not arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court emphasized the detailed procedure for recovery, including the prohibition against the arrest of women. 6. Analysis of Previous High Court Decisions: In Cyril Britto v. Union of India, the Kerala High Court considered whether section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which protects women from arrest in execution of a money decree, is ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court concluded that while section 25 of the 1993 Act does not explicitly provide such protection, the legislative intent was to treat public dues differently from private dues. 7. Object-oriented Interpretation: The Court emphasized that the provisions of the Act should receive an object-oriented interpretation. The reasoning that women who take substantial loans should be treated like any other judgment-debtor was found to be contrary to the Act and societal norms. 8. Distinguishing Consumer Protection Act Cases: In Mary Chacko v. Jancy Joseph, the Kerala High Court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not provide for the arrest of women in execution of orders. However, this decision was distinguished from the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, due to the specific reference to section 29 of the latter Act. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, is not authorized to arrest and detain a woman due to the specific prohibition contained in Rule 81 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is made applicable by section 29 of the Act.
|
