Retrospective pre-deposit amendment under debt recovery law upheld as procedural, with Tribunal's deposit order sustained.

An amendment by substitution to Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, governing pre-deposit for appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, was treated as procedural because it changed only the condition for exercising the statutory right of appeal and not the right itself. On that basis, the amended provision was held to apply retrospectively and to operate as if incorporated from the statute's inception. The Court also found no sufficient cause for waiver or extension of time, and held that the Tribunal's direction to deposit 50% of the debt amount was within the statutory framework. The writ petitions therefore failed on merits and the impugned orders were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 2016 amendment to Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, governing pre-deposit for appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, applied retrospectively and justified the direction to deposit 50% of the debt amount with only limited discretion to reduce the deposit.

Analysis: The amended provision was held to regulate the condition subject to which the statutory right of appeal could be exercised, rather than the existence of the right itself. Such a change in the mode and conditions of appeal was treated as procedural in character. The amendment, being by substitution, was also held to operate retrospectively, so that the altered provision was to be read as if incorporated from the inception of the statute. The Court further found that the petitioners had not shown sufficient cause for waiver or enlargement of time and that the deposit directed by the Appellate Tribunal was within the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The amendment to Section 21 was retrospective, the Appellate Tribunal's order did not suffer from legal error, and the petitioners were not entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on merits and the impugned orders refusing waiver and rejecting the appeal were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment by substitution that regulates only the condition for exercise of a statutory right of appeal, and not the right itself, is procedural in nature and applies retrospectively unless a contrary intention appears.

---