TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes pre-deposit rule for appeals under Securitisation Act - Compliance crucial for appeal validity</h1> <h3>Narayan Chandra Ghosh Versus UCO Bank</h3> The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in law by allowing an appeal without the mandatory pre-deposit required under section 18 of the ... Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Appellate Tribunal - Appeal to Issues:- Interpretation of section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 regarding pre-deposit for appealing to the Appellate Tribunal.Analysis:The judgment deals with an appeal against a High Court decision regarding the exemption of a borrower from making a pre-deposit under section 18 of the Act before appealing to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal without requiring the pre-deposit, which was contested by the bank. The key issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to exempt a person from making a pre-deposit as mandated by section 18 of the Act.The Court examined section 18(1) of the Act, which provides the right to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal but also imposes the condition of pre-deposit. The second proviso states that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited fifty percent of the debt due from him. The Court emphasized that the requirement of pre-deposit is mandatory and a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under the Act. It held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in law by entertaining the appeal without directing the appellant to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the appeal could be entertained without pre-deposit if the amount of debt due had not been determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It clarified that the borrower must deposit fifty percent of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors if the debt is yet to be determined. The Court highlighted that the Appellate Tribunal, as a creature of the Act, cannot refuse to give full effect to the statutory provisions.In the final decision, the Court directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a stipulated period for the appeal to be entertained and decided on merits. Failure to make the deposit would result in the dismissal of the appeal, allowing the bank to take further legal steps. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, concluding the legal proceedings in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
