1. The petitioner seeks review of an interim order passed by me during vacation sitting. The Writ Petition seeks to quash the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Securitisation Act’) for taking over the residential property of the petitioner. The interim relief sought for was stay of all proceedings under the Securitisation Act in so far as they pertain to the petitioner's property. Under the order sought to be reviewed, the interim relief was granted imposing a condition that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was obviously less than 25% of the total debt should be deposited.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Georgekutty Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri V.K Mohanan, learned counsel for the contesting 2nd respondent, the Bank.
3. Sri Georgekutty Mathew raised two points. The first was with reference to S. 31(g) of the Securitisation Act which according to the learned counsel exempts properties exempted under Cl. (c) of the first proviso to S. 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure from being proceeded against under the Securitisation Act. The second point raised by counsel was based on S. 17 of the Securitisation Act which provides for appeals to the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under Central Act 51 of 1993 by persons aggrieved by the measures taken under sub-section (4) of S. 13 of the Act. The argument of learned counsel was that since under S. 1(4) of Act 51 of 1993, the provisions of that Act apply only in cases where the total amount of debt due to the bank or financial institution is more than ten lakh rupees, the present proceedings by the 2nd respondent for recovery of a debt which is below Rs. 3 lakhs are not maintainable.
4. Neither of the arguments appeal to me. A reading of S. 31(g) of the Securitisation Act relied on very much by the petitioner itself will show that the properties which are specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered under the Act have been excluded from the purview of that clause. Clause (g) of S. 31 reads as follows.
“31. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases.— The provisions of this Act shall not apply to—
xxxxxxxxxxxx
(g) any properties not liable to attachment (excluding the properties specifically charged with the debt recoverable under this Act) or sale under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908);”
(Underlining mine)
Admittedly the residential property of the petitioner is mortgaged in favour of the 2nd respondent as security for the debt and the first point raised by Mr. Georgekutty Mathew has to be decided against the review petitioner.
5. The expression “debt” is defined under S. 2(ha) of the Securitisation Act to have the same meaning assigned to that term under Cl. (g) of S. 2 of Act 51 of 1993 which I quote as follows:—
(g) “debt” means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any Civil Court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application;”
There is no provision in the Securitisation Act corresponding to S. 1(4) of Act 51 of 1993 which provides that the Debts Recovery Tribunal is concerned only with debts exceeding ten lakh rupees. However, a reading of S. 31 which deals with the exemption to the application of the Act and sub-section (h) of that section will indicate that all security interest created for securing repayment of financial assets exceeding one lakh rupees are covered by the provisions of the Securitisation Act. The powers conferred on the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Securitisation Act are over and above that Tribunal's powers conferred on it under Act 51 of 1993. The second point raised by the review petitioner's learned counsel also will have to be decided against him.
6. Even otherwise, what I did under the impugned order was only to impose a moderate condition while granting the stay sought for by the petitioner. There is no warrant whatsoever for invoking this Court's review jurisdiction for reviewing the said order.
The Revision Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed.
Petition dismissed.