ORDER

S. Muralidhar, J. This petition is directed against an order dated 1st February, 2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (`DRAT') in Misc. Cas. No 64/2018 in Appeal No. 151/2016.

2. The background to the present petition is that the Petitioner is an employee of a sister concern of Respondent No. 2 company i.e. Vimoha Exports Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that the said Respondent company had availed of some credit facility from Respondent No. 1, Canara Bank, in connection with which security documents were executed way back on 31st December, 1994.

3. The Petitioner claims that the notices issued by the Bank for recall of the loan advanced to Respondent No. 2 company was not received by her. Be that as it may, the undisputed fact is that Respondent No. 1 bank filed OA No. 351/1999 in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II Delhi (`DRT-II') on 20th August, 1999 against Respondent No. 2 company and others, which included the present Petitioner. On 26th November, 2012, the DRT-II passed an order holding that Respondent No. 1 bank was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,83,063/- from the defendants to that application, which included the present Petitioner, jointly and severally, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28th August, 1999 till the date of recovery. The defendants were then asked to appear before the Recovery Officer on 28th January, 2013.

4. According to the Petitioner, it is at this stage that on 12th February, 2013 she received the recovery notice whereupon she filed an application being M.A. No. 68/2013 on 26th March, 2013 before the DRT-II for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 26th November, 2012. By an order dated 23rd September, 2014, the DRT-II dismissed the said application.

5. Against the said dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (`RDDB & FI Act') before the DRAT. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application being I.A. Nos. 839-840/2014 under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act seeking waiver of the pre-deposit amount.

6. It will be noted at this stage that at the time of the filing of the aforementioned appeal together with the application for waiver of the pre-deposit, Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act read as under:

"21. Deposit of amount of debt due, on filing appeal.

Where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal seventy-five per cent of the amount of debt so due from him as determined by the Tribunal under section 19:

Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section."

7. It will be seen from the reading of the above provisions that at that stage Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act provided for a discretion in the DRAT to waive the whole of the pre-deposit amount for reasons to be recorded in writing.

8. While the said appeal and application were pending consideration before the DRAT, a change was brought about in Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act by Act No. 44 of 2016 with effect from 1st September, 2016. The amended Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act (which incidentally has been renamed in 2017 as the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993) reads as under:

"21. Deposit of amount of debt due, on filing appeal.

Where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debt so due from him as determined by the Tribunal under section 19:

Provided that the Appellate Tribuna