H.L. Dattu ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by the borrower is directed against judgment dated 7th December, 2010 delivered by the High Court of Calcutta in CO. No. 3608 of 2009. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (for short, "the Appellate Tribunal") in Appeal No. 35 of 2009, whereby the Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the application filed by the Appellant under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the Act") had exempted the Appellant from making any deposit in terms of second proviso to Section 18 of the Act before entertaining the appeal against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
3. With the consent of learned Counsel for the Appellant as also the Respondent-bank, which is on caveat, we have heard the matter finally at the motion hearing stage itself. Since the issue canvassed before us is a pure question of law, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts giving rise to this appeal.
4. Assailing the judgment, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee has submitted that since the Debts Recovery Tribunal had not entertained the appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section 17 of the Act on a technical ground and the quantum of amount due from the Appellant had not been determined, the Appellate Tribunal could not saddle the Appellant with any liability of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the Act. It is thus, asserted that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in entertaining the appeal without insisting on any deposit in terms of Section 18 of the Act.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the bank, while supporting the judgment of the High Court has submitted that the Appellate Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the deposit of an amount in terms of Section 18 of the Act is a condition precedent for entertainment of the appeal. According to the learned Counsel, the language of Section 18(1) of the Act being clear and unambiguous, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was clearly unsustainable.
6. Thus, the short question for consideration is whether the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to exempt the person, preferring an appeal under Section 18 of the Act from making any pre-deposit in terms of the said provision?
7. Section 18 , which provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, reads as under:
18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.-(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 , may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as........