The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amended provision of Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act has only prospective effect, and the tribunal can only exercise discretionary power as per the amended provisions of the RDDBFI Act.

S. RAVI KUMAR, CHAIRPERSON

1. In all these Appeals, Miscellaneous Applications are filed by Appellants seeking waiver of statutory deposit under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the RDDBFI Act). In view of amendment of this provision with effect from (w.e.f.) 1st September, 2016 arguments were heard as to the application of amended provisions as preliminary point on the request of Applicants. Therefore, as the point involved is very limited, it is not necessary to go into the merits and demerits of individual cases.

2. Both sides argued matter classifying the issues under two heads. First head is whether amendment has prospective or retrospective effect, and second point is whether right of waiver is vested right, accrued right or an enabling right. On behalf of Applicants and Respondent Banks written submissions were also filed. From the written submissions and oral submissions coupled with the judgments cited it can be safely recorded that on first point both sides agree that amended provision is prospective in nature and there is no specific provision giving retrospective effect. Therefore, only the issue left over is as to the right of Applicants.

3. Before going into that aspect, I may also mention here that proviso to Section 21 of RDDBFI Act is amended by removing power of total waiver and restricting it to 25% and reducing statutory deposit from 75% to 50% making it at par with provision contained in Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SRFAESI Act). Now core argument on behalf of Applicants is all these applications were filed prior to amendment, their request for 100% waiver has to be considered and ordered. On the other hand, it is the contention of Advocate for Banks that the amendment only regulates discretionary power of this Tribunal which is neither a vested right, nor accrued right to the Applicants.

4. On behalf of Applicants arguments were advanced at length by referring to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Hon'ble High Court to impress upon this Tribunal that it is the vested right of Appellants to file their applications seeking waiver. On behalf of Banks judgment of Chancery Division and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court are cited as an answer to the contentions of the Applicants that they have vested right to file applications seeking waiver. It is the contention of Applicants that amended provisions do not curtail discretion of this Tribunal to grant total waiver of pre-deposit in respect of cases in which applications are filed prior to amendment.

5. Appellant relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of M.P., AIR 1953 S.C. 221) for the preposition that Appeals filed before amendment and waiver application filed therein will continue to be governed by old law by giving discretion to the Tribunal to grant 100% waiver. This decision is under Central Provinces and Berar Sales-tax Act, 1947 and the amendment was in respect of penalties for violation of provisions of the said Act.

They have also relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, AIR 2014 S.C. 101, for the preposition that when there is no specific mention in the amended provision giving retrospective effect, it will have prospective effect.

They have also relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash M. Shah, AIR 2008 S.C. 3086, arising out of amendment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, giving bar to condone delay in filing cases.

They have also relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Bhajan Kaur, AIR 2008 S.C.