[2015) 9 S.C.R. 1

BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL A

BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No.5924 of 2015 etc.) B

AUGUST 05, 2015

[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets c and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - s. 18(2) - Appellate Tribunal - Power of - To condone delay in filing appeal u/s.18(1) of the Act- Held: s. 18(2) provides that the Tribunal under the Act has to dispose of an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to D Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Thus the proviso to s. 20(3) of the 1993 Act is applicable - Unless the scheme of the statute expressly excludes the power of condonation, such power cannot be denied to the Tribunal, when the statutory scheme so warrants - Principle of legislation by E incorporation can be applied- Therefore, the Tribunal 10has the power u/s. 18(2) rlw proviso to s. 20(3) of the 1993 Act to condone the delay in filing appeal uls.18(1) - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - s.20(3) proviso - Principle of legislation by incorporation - F

Delay - Condonation of

Limitation Act, 1963:

S.29(2) -Applicability of- To the proceedings under G Securities and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and ..

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002- Held: s.29(2) does not have absolute application - the 2002 Act impliedly excludes applicability of provisions of Limitation Act to the extent a different scheme is adopted - Securitisation and H - 1 '

A Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

S. 14 - Applicability of - Held: Prin_ciples under s. 14 would be applicable to the appeal u/s. 18(1) of SARFAESI B Act, 2002, even though the provisions of s. 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act are inapplicable to such. proceedings - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Finan<jal Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - s. 18(1 ). • c Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. A bare perusal of Section 18(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

0 (SARFAESI Act), makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has to dispose of an appeairin accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (ROB Act). In this respect, the provisions of the ROB Act stand E incorporated in the SARFAESI Act for disposal of an appeal. Once it is so, there is no reason as to why the SARFAESI Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal beyond the prescribed period even on being satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing such appeal F within that period. [Para 8] (11-F-G]

. 2. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act has no absolute application, as the statute in question impliedly excludes applicability of provisions of Limitation Act to the extent G a different scheme is adopted. Exclusion of power of

condonation of delay can be implied. [Para 12] [14-B-C]

Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co. (1995) 5 SCC 5; Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission 2010 (4) SCR 680:

(2010) 5 SCC 23; Commissioner of Customs and ' '

BALESHWAR DAYALJAISWAL v. BANK OF INDIA& ORS. 3

Central Excise vs. Hongo India Private Limited (2009) A 5 SCC 791; Gopa/ Sardar vs. Karuna Sardar 2004 (2) SCR 826 : (2004) 4 sec 252 - relied on.

3. Unless the scheme of the statute expressly excludes the power of condonation, _there is no reason B to deny such power to a Appellate Tribunal when the statutory scheme so warrants. Principle of legislation by incorporation is well known. [Para 8] [12-A-B]

Ram Kirpal Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar 1970 (3) c SCR 233: (1969) 3 SCC 471; Boiani Ores Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 1975 (2) SCR 138: (1974) 2 sec 111; Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Union of India 1979

(2) SCR 1038: (1979) 2 SCC 529; Onkarlal Nandlal vs. State of Rajasthan 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 1075: D

(1985) 4 sec 404relied on.

4. Section 22 of ROB Act vests powers of Civil Court on the Tribunal only for purposes mentioned therein, such as summoning witnesses, discovery and E production of documents, receiving evidence, issuing commission for examining witnesses etc. and deems Tribunals to be courts for specified purposes, such as for Sections 193, 196 and 228 of the Penal Code and Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The power F of condonation of delay was expressly applicable by virtue of Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act read with proviso to Section 20(3) of the ROB Act and to that extent, the provisions of Limitation Act having been expressly incorporated under the special statutes in question, G Section 29(2) stands impliedly excluded. [Para 14] [14-

F-G; 15-A, C-E]

Sajida Begum vs. State Bank of India AIR 2013 AP 24; UCO Bank, Mumbai vs. Mis. Kanji Manji Kothari and H Co., Mumbai 2008 (4) Mhlj424; Punnu Swami vs. The

SUPREME COURT RC:PORTS

[2015} 9 S.C.R.

Debts Recovery Tribunal 2009 (3) BJ 401 - partly approved.

Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. 2009 (12) SCR 54: (2009) 8 sec 646 - referred to.

5. Even though Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be impliedly inapplicable, principle of S, ection 14 of the Limitation Act can be held to be applicable even if Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not apply. [Para14][15-F]

Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department 2008 (5) SCR 1108:

(2008) 7 sec 169; M.P. Steel Corporation VS.

Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 5 SCALE 505 D

- relied on.

6. Thus, the delay in filing an appeal under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act can be condoned by the Appellate Tribunal under proviso to Section 20(3) of the E ROB Act read with Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 15] [15-G; 16-A-B]

Transcore vs. Union of India 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 785:

(2008) 1 sec 125 - relied on.

Mis. Seth Banshidhar Media Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs.

State Bank of India AIR 2011 MP 205 - not approved.

Gopal Sardar vs. Karuna Sardar 2004 (2) SCR 826:

(2004) 4 SCC 252; Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. vs. The Custodian 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 505: (2004) 11 SCC 472 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

AIR 2011 MP 205 not approved.

Para 6

AIR 2013AP 24 partly approved Para 6 2008 (4) MhLj424 partly approved Para 6

BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL v. BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 5

2009 (3) BJ 401 partly approved Para6 A

1970 (3) SCR 233 relied on.

Paras

1975 (2) SCR 13S relied on.

Paras

1979 (2) SCR 103S relied on.

Para S

19S5 (2) Suppl. SCR 1075 relied on.

Para S B 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 7S5 relied on.

Para 9

2004 (2) SCR S26 referred to.

Para10, 12

2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 505 referred to.

Para 10.

(1995) 5 sec 5 relied on.

Para 12 c

2010 (4) SCR 6SO relied on.

Para 12

(2009) 5 sec 791 relied on.

Para 12

2004 (2) SCR S26 relied on.

Para 12

2009 (12) SCR 54 referred to.

Para 14 D

200S (5) SCR 110S relied on.

Para 14

(2015) 5 SCALE 505 relied on.

Para 14

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5924 of2015 E

From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2011 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 8864 of2011

WITH F

C.A. No. 5925, 5926 and 5927 of 2015

Rana Mukherjee, Daisy Hannah, Priyanka Das, Sanjay Kapur, Amal Chitale, Pragya Baghel, Prince Powia, Akshat Shrivastava, Ronin Oza, Manjeet Kirpal, Pragati Neekhra, G Pranesh for the Appellant.

Vijay Hansaria, Niraj Sharma, Sumit Kumar Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H

A ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The question in this batch of appeals is whether the Appellate Tribunal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, B 2002 ("the SAR FAE SI Act") has the power to condone delay

in filing an appeal under Section 18(1) of the said Act.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, including S/ShriAmol Chitale andAkshat Shrivastava, c counsel for the appellants-borrowers and Shri Rana Mukherjee, senior counsel and S/Shri Anil Kumar Sangal and Pranab Kumar Mullick, counsel appearing for the Banks.

4. The appellants submit that the Appellate Tribunal has

0 the power to condone delay in filing the appeal beyond by the prescribed period of limitation because of the following

reasons:

(i) Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act provides that the

Appellate Tribunal shall follow the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks c:ind Financial Institutions Act,_ 1993 ("the RDB Act") in disposing of the appeal unless otherwise provided under the SARFAESI Act or the rules made thereunder. The proviso to Section 20(3) of the ROB Act empowers the Appellate Tribunal to entertain an appeal after expiry of period of limitation, if sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation was shown. Thus, the proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act is incorporated in Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act;

(ii) Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes the said Act's Sections 4 to 24 applicable to a special or local law prescribing a different period of limitation for a suit, appeal or application unless expressly excluded.

There bei11g no provision in the SARFAESI Act

BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL v. BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 7

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

excluding the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the A Limitation Act, delay can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and time can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act wherever applicable; and

(iii) Section 24 of the ROB Act makes the Limitation Act

applicable to an application made to a Tribunal. Section

36 of the SARFAESI Act makes period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act applicable to measures taken under Section 13( 4). Thus, there is be C no exclusion of the Limitation Act.

5. On the other hand, the Banks would contend that:

(i) Section 18(2) of the SAR FAE SI Act cannot be read as 0 extending provisions of proviso to Section 20(3) of the ROB Act to an appeal filed under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act;

(ii) Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is not attracted to proceedings before a Tribunal as the period of E limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act is applicable only to proceedings before a Court and not before a Tribunal; and

(iii) Provisions of Limitation Act can starid excluded not F only by an express provision of a local or special law but also by necessary implication from the scheme of such local or special law .. The scheme of the SARFAESI Act by making the Limitation Act expressly applicable to measures under section 13(4) of the Act G impliedly excludes the said Act from appeals or other proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the parties have brought to our notice that the issue in question has been examined by the H

A High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Anhra Pradesh, Bombay and Madras. While Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mis. Seth Banshidhar Media Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Bank of lndia1 held that delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned by the Tribunal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sajida B Begum vs. State Bank of lndia2, the Bombay High Court in

UCO Bank, Mumbai vs. Mis. Kanji Manji Kothari and Co., MumbaP and the. Madras High Court in Punnu Swami vs.

The Debts Recovery Tribuna/4 have taken contrary view.

C 7.At this stage it will be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Sections 18 and 36 of the SARFAESI Act, Section 20 and Section 24 of the ROB Act and Section 29 of the Limitation Act :

D "Sections 18 and 36 of the SARFAESI Act:

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 alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed to an Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal:

PROVIDED that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the boffower or by the person other than the borrower:

PROVIDED FURTHER that no appeal shall be entertained unless the boffower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent. of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or

1 AIR 2011 MP 205

2 AIR2013AP24 3 2008 (4) Mhlj424 H

4 2009 (3) BJ 401

BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL v. BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less:

PROVIDED ALSO that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five per cent. of debt referred to in the second proviso.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Appellate Triburial shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial lrystitutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.

36. Limitation No secured creditor shall be entitled to take all or any of the measures under sub-section ( 4) of section 13, unless his claim in respect of financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36of1963). ·

Sections 20 and 24 of the ROB Act :

Section 20 Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal

(1) Save as provided in subsection (2), any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.

(2) No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made by a Tribunal with the consent of the parties.

(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period offorty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made, or deemed to have been

A made, by the Tribunal is received by 1iim and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:

Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an

B appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

(4) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the c Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against.

(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the parties to the appeal and to the concerned Tribunal.

(6) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal

E under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal.

Section 24 Limitation-The provisions of the Limitation F Act, 1963(36of1963), shall, asfarasmaybe, applyto an application made to a Tribunal.

Section 29 of the Limitation Act

29. Savings-

(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872).

(2) Where any special or local Jaw prescribes for any H suit, appeal or application a period of /imitation different

BALESHWAR OAYALJAISWAL v. BANK OF INOIA& ORS. 11

[AOARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the A provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections B 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time C being in force with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law.

(4) Sections 25 and 26 and the definition of"easement" o in section 2 shall not apply to cases arising in the territories to which the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), may for the time being extend."

8. The first point for consideration is the applicability of E proviso to Section 20(3) of the ROB Act to the disposal of an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act. A bare perusal of the said Section 18(2) makes it clearthattheAppellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has to dispose of an appeal in accordance with the F provisions of the ROB Act. In this respect, the provisions of the ROB Act stand incorporated in the SARFAESI Act for

disposal of an appeal. Once it is so, we are unable to discern any reason as to why the SAR FAE SI Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal beyond the prescribed period even on G being satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing such appeal within that period. Even if power of condonation of delay by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act were held

not to be applicable, the proviso to Section 20(3) of the ROB Act is applicable by virtue of Section 18(2) of the SAR FAES I H

A Act. This interpretation is clearly borne out from the provisions of the two statutes and also advances the cause of justice.

Unless the scheme of the statute expressly excludes the power of condonation, there is no reason to deny such power to a Appellate Tribunal when the statutory scheme so warrants.

S Principle of legislation by incorporation is well known and has been applied inter alia in Ram Kirpal Bhagat vs. The. State of Bihar6, Boiani Ores Ltd. vs. State of Orissa6, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Union of lndia 7 and Onkar/al Nandlal vs. State of Rajasthan8 relied upon on behalf of the C appellants. We have thus no hesitation in holding that the

Appellate Tribunal under the SAR FAE SI Act has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal before it by virtue of Section 18(2) SARFAESI Act and proviso to Section 20(3) of D the RDS Act.

9. The fact that RDS Act and the SARFAESI Act are r .complimentary to each other, as held by this Court in Transcore vs. Union of lndia9, also supports this view.

10. We may now deal with the conflicting views of the High Courts on the subject. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the power of condonation of delay stood excluded by principle of interpretation that if a later statute has provided for shorter period of limitation without express provision for F condonation, it could be implied that there was no power of condonation. Reliance has been placed on principles of statutory interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 121h Edition, 2010, page 310. It was further observed that the Limitation Act was made applicable to a Tribunal under Section 24 of G the RDS Act, but there was no similar provision with respect to the Appellate Tribunal. To justify such an inference, reliance

5 (1969) 3 sec 471 6 (1974) 2 sec 777 "H 7 (1979) 2 sec 529 . 8 (1985) 4 sec 404 9 (2008J 1 sec 125

' BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL v. BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 13

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] ·

has also been placed on Gopal Sardar case and Fairgrowth A Investments Ltd. vs. The Custodian 10• It was further observed that the object of SARFAESI Act was to ensure speedy recovery of the dues and quicker resolution of disputes arising out of action taken for recovery of such dues. We find the approach to be erroneous and incorrect understanding of B the principle of interpretation which has been relied upon. The principle discussed in the celebrated Treatise in question is as follows:

"When an amending Act alters the language of the C principal statue, the alteration must be taken to have been made deliberately"

11. It is difficult to appreciate how the above principle justifies the view of the High Court. The change intended in D SARFAESI Act has to be seen from the statute and not from beyond it. No doubt the period of limitation for filing appeal under Section 18 of the SAR FAES I Act is 30 days as against 45 days under Section 20 of the RDS Act. To this extent, legislative intent may be deliberate.

The absence of an E express provision for condonation, when Section 18(2) expressly adopts and incorporates the provisions of the RDS Act which contains provision for condonation of delay in filing of an appeal, cannot be read as excluding the power of condonation. As already observed, the proviso to Section F 20(3) which provides for condonation of delay (45 days under RDS Act) stands extended to disposal of appeal under the SARFAESI Act (to the extent that condonation is of delay beyond 30 days). There is no reason to exclude the proviso to Section 20(3) indealing with an appeal under the SARFAESI G Act. Taking such a view will be nullifying Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act. We are thus, unable to uphold the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

10 (2004) 11 sec 412 H

12. We approve the view taken by the Madras, Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts, but for different reasons.

The view taken by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sajida Begum vs. State Bank of lndia11 is based on applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. In our view, Section 29(2) B of the Limitation Act has no absolute application, as the statute in question impliedly excludes applicability of provisions of Limitation Act to the extent a different scheme is adopted. If no provision of Limitation Act was expressly adopted, it may have been possible to hold that by virtue of Section 29(2) power C of condonation of delay was available. It is well settled that exclusion of power of condonation of delay can be implied as laid down in Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co. 12, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Central Electricity

0 Regulatory Commission13, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo lnc'ia Private Limited14 and Gopal Sardar vs. Karuna Sardar1'. relied upon on behalf of the Banks.

13. We may now advert to the last question as to whether E the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act was not a Court

and therefore, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act was not attracted.

14. TheAndhra Pradesh High Court in Sajida Begum F case in holding the Tribunal to be Court, has relied on Sections 22 and 24 of the RDB Act. Section 22 vests powers of Civil Court on the Tribunal only for purposes mentioned therein. such as summoning witnesses, discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence, issuing G commission for examining witnesses etc. and deems Tribunals

11 AIR2013AP 24 12 (1995) 5 sec 5 13 (201 o) 5 sec 23 14 (2009) 5 sec 191 H 15 (2004) 4 sec 252

BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL v. BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 15

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

to be courts for specified purposes, such as for Sections 193, A 196 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These provisions may not be conclusive of the question of the Tribunal being Court for Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act without further examining the scheme of the statutes in question. In Nahar Industrial B Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. 16, .this Court examined the scheme of the two Acts in question and held that the Tribunal was a court but not a civil court for purposes of Section 24 of the CPC.We are of the view that for purposes of decision of these appeals, it is not C necessary to decide the question whether the Tribunal under the Banking statutes in question was court for purposes of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. We have already held that the power of condonation of delay was expressly applicable 0 by virtue of Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act read with proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act and to that extent, the provisions of Limitation Act having been expressly incorporated under the special statutes in question, Section 29(2) stands impliedly excluded. To this extent, we differ with the view taken E by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as Madras and Bombay High Courts. We are also in agreement with the pri11ciple that even though Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be impliedly inapplicable, principle of Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be held to be applicable even if Section F 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not apply, as laid down by this.

Court in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs.

Principal Secretary, Irrigation Departrnent11 and M.P. Stel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise18 .

15. As a result of the above discussion, the question is answered in the affirmative by holding that delay in filing an

16 (2009) a sec 646 11 (2ooa> 7 sec 169

18 (2015) 5 SCALE 505

A appeal under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act can be condoned by the Appellate Tribunal under proviso to Section 20 (3) of the ROB Act read with Section 18 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. The contrary view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Banshidhar Media Rice Mills B Pvt. Ltd. case is overruled.

16. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Bank against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is dismissed and the appeals filed by the borrowers are allowed. The impugned C orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (in appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.27674 of 2011 and SLP (C) No.36316 of 2011) are set aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court for being dealt with afresh in accordance with law. The appeal arising out of SLP (C) D No.38436 of2012 has been preferred directly from the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi passed by the said tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Banshidhar Media Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. case. The said impugned order is also set aside and the E matter is remanded to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,

Delhi for being dealt with afresh in accordance with law. ·

17.

All the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.

...