Recovery certificates could not support insolvency notices before the later deeming provision, which had no retrospective operation.

A pre-2016 Debts Recovery Tribunal recovery certificate was not a "decree or order" under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, because insolvency provisions with serious civil consequences require strict construction and the expression refers to decrees or orders of regularly constituted courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. It therefore could not support an insolvency notice. Section 19(22A) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, introduced in 2016, deemed recovery certificates to be decrees or orders for specified insolvency proceedings, but did not operate retrospectively. A later amendment could not validate a claim untenable when instituted or revive proceedings after the insolvency notice was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal before the 2016 amendment could constitute a "decree or order" for issuing an insolvency notice under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. (ii) Whether Section 19(22A) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 retrospectively validated reliance on such a recovery certificate.

Issue (i): Whether a pre-2016 recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal could constitute a "decree or order" for issuing an insolvency notice under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.

Analysis: Insolvency legislation, carrying grave civil consequences, must be strictly construed. The expression "decree or order" in Section 9(2) is to be understood in the context of the definitions under Sections 2(2) and 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and refers to a decree or order of a regularly constituted court. A recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal under the pre-amended recovery legislation is not equivalent to such a decree or order. The principle that an insolvency notice is not a mode of execution or enforcement further supports this interpretation.

Conclusion: A recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal before the 2016 amendment cannot constitute a "decree or order" under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 19(22A) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 retrospectively validated reliance on the recovery certificate.

Analysis: Section 19(22A), introduced in 2016, expressly deemed a recovery certificate to be a decree or order for specified insolvency proceedings. Its enactment indicates that the equivalence did not previously exist. The amendment was not given retrospective effect, and the rights and liabilities had to be determined according to the law applicable when the litigation commenced. A claim untenable at institution could not become tenable merely because of a subsequent statutory amendment. In any event, the amendment could not assist proceedings where the insolvency notice had already been quashed.

Conclusion: Section 19(22A) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 does not retrospectively validate the recovery certificate or aid the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The recovery certificate could not support initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, and the statutory amendment did not alter that result.

Ratio Decidendi: A recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal before the introduction of Section 19(22A) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is not a "decree or order" capable of supporting an insolvency notice under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, and the later deeming provision has no retrospective operation.

---