2005 (5) TMI 339 - SC - Companies Law

Supreme Court emphasizes deposit compliance for appeal hearings

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with the deposit requirement set by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. ... Decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) directing the appeal being entertained for hearing subject to deposit of 30 per cent of Rs. 23,42,91,487 within eight weeks from the date of the order - Held that:- The appellant shall appear before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal within four weeks from today and having made the compliance, as aforesaid, satisfy the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal that the amount, as directed by it, in its order dated 27-2-2004, has been deposited. The delay, if any, in making the deposit shall stand condoned. If the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal feels satisfied that 30 per cent of the amount, as directed by it, stands deposited then the appeal shall be entertained and heard on merits. If the amount so deposited, as stated hereinabove, does not amount to 30 per cent as directed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal then the appeal filed before it shall stand dismissed. Issues:- Appeal against decree passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)- Compliance with deposit requirement by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal- Interpretation of compliance with deposit conditions- Appellant's submission of deposit details- Respondent's contention on compliance with deposit conditions- Appellant's response to respondent's contentions- Court's directive on compliance and appeal dismissalAnalysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal against a decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Mumbai. The appeal was filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in Mumbai, which directed the appeal to be entertained subject to the deposit of 30% of the specified amount within a set timeframe. The appellant failed to comply with the deposit requirement, leading to the High Court's refusal to extend the time for compliance. Consequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by filing a special leave appeal.The appellant claimed compliance by depositing amounts on different occasions, including payments towards a one-time settlement, fixed deposits, and payments as per the High Court's order. However, the respondent contended that the deposits made did not meet the conditions set by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The respondent argued that certain amounts were not deposited unconditionally or were subject to specific terms and conditions, thus not fulfilling the deposit requirement.In response to the respondent's contentions, the appellant, through learned counsel, assured the court of immediate compliance. The appellant agreed to deposit the specified amounts in the required manner, addressing the concerns raised by the respondent. The court acknowledged and recorded the appellant's commitment to comply with the deposit conditions, emphasizing that the statement made by the appellant's counsel would be binding.The court directed the appellant to appear before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal within a specified timeframe to demonstrate compliance with the deposit requirement. If the tribunal found that the required amount had been deposited satisfactorily, the appeal would be entertained and heard on its merits. However, failure to deposit the specified amount as directed would lead to the dismissal of the appeal before the tribunal. The judgment concluded with the disposal of the appeal in accordance with the outlined terms, with no specific order regarding costs.