9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mended provision of the Act would apply because unamended provision would go in oblivion and would not be applicable. In view thereof, there was hardly any power vested with the DRAT to have passed an order ignoring the amended provisions for the purpose of giving a complete waiver to the petitioner in the first petition which has been challenged by the petitioner in the second petition. Once it is held that the DRAT had no jurisdiction at all to have waived the amount of pre-deposit of 50% or at the most even 25%, therefore, the order dated 26.12.2016 to entertain the appeal, filed by the petitioner in the first petition is bad in law. Even otherwise, the DRAT had no jurisdiction to observe that since the auction purchaser has already d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchased by the auction purchaser for a sum of ₹ 4,34,50,000/- in the auction conducted by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the DRT-I ). Though, there is a chequered history of this case but the present controversy can be summarized by referring to two orders which are under challenge in both the petitions. In the second petition, the order dated 26.12.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the DRAT ) has been challenged by which Appeal No. 76 of 2016, filed by the writ petitioner of the first petition has been entertained de hors the provisions of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other issue involved is as to whether the appeal having been filed before the commencement of the amendment and the order has been passed after the amendment has come then in such circumstances whether the appellate authority was obliged to look into the amended provision of law? Since, the facts are not in dispute, therefore, we would directly refer to the provisions of law in this case. In this regard, learned counsel for the guarantor has referred to the un-amended provision of the Act which read thus:- 21. Deposit of amount of debt due, on filing appeal. - Where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks or financial institutions, such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the amended provisions of Section 21 of the Act would apply even at the time when the order was passed on 26.12.2016 as according to him, the amended law cannot be retrospective. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in this regard and are of the considered opinion that whenever amendment has come in Section 21 during the pendency of the application which was decided after the amendment then the amended provision of the Act would apply because unamended provision would go in oblivion and would not be applicable. In view thereof, there was hardly any power vested with the DRAT to have passed an order ignoring the amended provisions for the purpose of giving a complete waiver to the petitioner in the first petition which has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
