Relying on the cases Garikapatti Veeraya v. Subbiah Choudhary (1957 SCR 488) and Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors. V. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1079), the Delhi High Court noted that the statute has to be interpreted “if possible, to respect vested rights.” The same cannot be construed if the enactment does not say anything about the retrospective application.
Brief Facts:
The petition was preferred against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) vide which Petitioner’s right to file a written statement was closed as it was held to be barred by limitation. The Application for condonation of delay was also dismissed.
Section 19(5) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 did not prescribe any time limit per se. Then 2013 amendments came in place and provided 2 extensions beyond the statutory 30 days for filing the written submissions. The discretion was left to the Presiding Officer to grant such an extension and record the reasons in writing.
Then 2016 amendments came and the discretion was taken away. The time limit was specified to 30 days which was made extendable by another 15 days. According to this law, the DRAT held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal did not have the discretion to grant an extension.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the law should be seen from the date when the right to file a written statement arose. On that day the 2016 amendments do not apply as there is no retrospective application of the amendment.
Observations of the Court:
Relying on the cases Garikapatti Veeraya v. Subbiah Choudhary (1957 SCR 488) and Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors. V. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1079), the bench noted that the statute has to be interpreted “if possible, to respect vested rights.” The same cannot be construed if the enactment does not say anything about the retrospective application.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court set aside the order of the DRAT and remanded the matter to Tribunal.
Case Title: M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. V. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri
Case No.: W.P.(C) 6606/2019
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Ms. Raavi Birbal, Mr. Rishabh Nigam
Advocate for Respondents: Adv. Mr. Deepak Kochhar.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments