Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Latest Judgment on 23(2) Proviso Regarding Recovery - Main points and insights:
Proviso to Section 23(2) of the Income Tax Act and Recovery Proceedings: The judgment emphasizes that notices issued under Section 23(2) or Section 143(2) can be construed as notices under Section 34 if they are issued consequent to appellate orders, and the second proviso to Section 34 applies accordingly. This aligns with the principles that recovery actions must adhere to the statutory timelines and procedural safeguards ["Rajendran R. VS Union Bank of India - Kerala"], ["Manmohan Singh VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"].
Omission of Recovery of Possession in Suit and Impact of Proviso to Section 34: If a suit omits to seek recovery of possession, it must fail under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which mandates that relief of recovery of possession should be explicitly claimed. The courts have consistently held that reliefs like declaration of title or recovery of possession cannot be granted if not specifically sought, reinforcing the importance of compliance with statutory provisions ["Raveendran Nair, S/o. Raman Nair VS Bhaskaran (Died), S/o. Kutty - Kerala"].
Recovery of Money and the Second Proviso to Section 34: When a decree for recovery of money is put into execution, if the judgment debtor claims 'no means,' the burden of proof lies on him to establish inability to pay. The proviso to Section 34 restricts the court from granting recovery of possession or declaration of title if such relief was not sought, and similarly, the recovery proceedings must follow the procedural limits set by law ["Raveendran Nair, S/o. Raman Nair VS Bhaskaran (Died), S/o. Kutty - Kerala"], ["Rajendran R. VS Union Bank of India - Kerala"].
Recent Supreme Court Decision (2023): The Supreme Court reiterated that recovery proceedings must strictly comply with the statutory provisions, including the proviso to Section 34. It clarified that recovery of possession or declaration of title cannot be granted if not explicitly claimed, and that recovery actions must adhere to the procedural safeguards, especially the requirement of seeking relief within prescribed timelines ["Raveendran Nair, S/o. Raman Nair VS Bhaskaran (Died), S/o. Kutty - Kerala"].
Implication for Recovery of Possession and Money: The judgment underscores that recovery proceedings, whether for possession or money, are governed by statutory provisions with specific timelines and procedural requirements. Failure to comply with these provisions, especially the requirement to explicitly seek recovery or possession, can lead to the failure of the suit or proceedings ["Raveendran Nair, S/o. Raman Nair VS Bhaskaran (Died), S/o. Kutty - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
The latest Supreme Court judgment reinforces that the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act plays a crucial role in limiting the scope of reliefs granted in suits, especially concerning recovery of possession and declaration of title. It emphasizes that reliefs not explicitly claimed or sought in the suit are barred from being granted under the proviso. Additionally, recovery proceedings, whether for money or possession, must strictly adhere to statutory timelines and procedural safeguards, including the requirement of specific relief claims and proof of inability to pay or possess. The judgment clarifies that non-compliance with these procedural mandates results in the failure of the suit or recovery action, ensuring that recovery processes are conducted within the bounds of law. This latest ruling aligns with established legal principles and clarifies the scope of recoveries under the proviso to Section 34 ["Raveendran Nair, S/o. Raman Nair VS Bhaskaran (Died), S/o. Kutty - Kerala"].
In the complex world of debt recovery, banks and financial institutions often navigate a maze of statutory provisions to enforce dues efficiently. A common query arises: What is the latest judgment in 23 (2) Proviso regarding recovery? This question typically refers to the Proviso under Section 23(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB Act), and its interplay with limitation periods borrowed from other laws like the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Recent judicial pronouncements have provided much-needed clarity, distinguishing RDDB proceedings from tax recovery mechanisms. This blog post delves into the key findings, analyzes the ruling, and integrates insights from related cases to offer a comprehensive overview. Whether you're a legal practitioner, bank executive, or debtor, understanding these nuances can prevent procedural pitfalls.
The cornerstone of the latest decision is that provisions akin to Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961—which curbs recovery beyond a certain timeframe—do not directly apply to RDDB Act proceedings. The court explicitly held that proceedings for recovery of amounts determined as payable to a Bank/Financial Institution under the RDDB Act are not governed by Rule 68B Geevarghese P. John, Son Of Late P. P. John VS Federal Bank Ltd. , Nedumbassery Branch, Represented By Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Marine Drive, Ernakulam - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1631.
This ruling underscores the independent statutory framework of the RDDB Act. Section 23(2) Proviso sets its own limitation for initiating recovery, without incorporating Income Tax restrictions. As the judgment notes, the Proviso to Section 23(2) does not incorporate the restrictions of Rule 68B Geevarghese P. John, Son Of Late P. P. John VS Federal Bank Ltd. , Nedumbassery Branch, Represented By Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Marine Drive, Ernakulam - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1631.
This separation ensures banks aren't unduly hampered by tax-specific curbs, promoting swift enforcement.
Section 23(2) Proviso limits the initiation of recovery proceedings post-certificate issuance. However, the court clarified this is RDDB-specific: Section 23(2) Proviso of the RDDB Act sets a limitation period for initiating recovery proceedings, but the court clarified that this period is governed by the specific provisions of the RDDB Act itself, and not by the Income Tax Rules or other unrelated procedural rules Geevarghese P. John, Son Of Late P. P. John VS Federal Bank Ltd. , Nedumbassery Branch, Represented By Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Marine Drive, Ernakulam - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1631.
The judgment stresses independent interpretation: The court emphasized that the statutory framework of the RDDB Act, including its provisions on limitation and recovery, must be interpreted independently of unrelated rules such as Rule 68B Geevarghese P. John, Son Of Late P. P. John VS Federal Bank Ltd. , Nedumbassery Branch, Represented By Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Marine Drive, Ernakulam - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1631. Attempts to import foreign rules are invalid unless explicitly referenced.
In parallel contexts, courts have reinforced RDDB's autonomy. For instance, in challenges to sales under RDDB, compliance with pre-deposit mandates is mandatory, highlighting procedural rigor separate from tax laws Mathew Antony VS Oriental Bank Of Commerce - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1122.
While the primary ruling stands alone, complementary cases illuminate recovery limitations under allied statutes like SARFAESI Act, 2002, which often intersects with RDDB.
Limitation Act Applicability: Section 5 of the Limitation Act may apply to DRT proceedings via Section 24 of RDDB Act, allowing condonation of delay in Section 17 applications under SARFAESI. Provisions of Ss. 4 to 24 (both inclusive) of Limitation Act shall apply... delay in filing application/appeal/petition u/s. 17(1) of SARFAESI Act can be condoned by DRT Ramesh Pal vs IDFC First Bank Limited - 2025 Supreme(MP) 524. This contrasts with Rule 68B's rigidity, showing flexibility where statutes permit.
Pre-Deposit in RDDB Sales: In a case challenging property sales, the court upheld dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit, affirming failure to comply with mandatory pre-deposit requirements under the applicable rules rendered the application to set aside the sale not maintainable Mathew Antony VS Oriental Bank Of Commerce - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1122.
Historical Income Tax Notices: Older notices under Section 23(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (predecessor to 1961 Act), were scrutinized separately, reinforcing domain-specific rules Ramkrishna Ramnath Firm Kamptee v. G. Lakshmi Narsimhan I. T. O. Nagpur - 1970 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 14.
These cases collectively affirm that recovery under RDDB/SARFAESI operates on its terms, without automatic import of tax constraints.
The decision confirms Rule 68B's confinement to tax recovery: The applicability of procedural restrictions like Rule 68B is limited to tax recovery proceedings and does not automatically extend to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act Geevarghese P. John, Son Of Late P. P. John VS Federal Bank Ltd. , Nedumbassery Branch, Represented By Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Marine Drive, Ernakulam - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1631.
Exceptions May Arise If:- RDDB explicitly incorporates other rules (none currently for Rule 68B).- General Limitation Act provisions apply via savings clauses, as in SARFAESI delays Ramesh Pal vs IDFC First Bank Limited - 2025 Supreme(MP) 524.
Recommendations for Stakeholders:- Banks/Financial Institutions: Rely solely on RDDB timelines; document compliance meticulously to avoid challenges.- Debtors: Challenge on RDDB-specific grounds, not borrowed tax rules.- Practitioners: Legal practitioners should carefully distinguish between recovery procedures under different statutes and not assume that procedural restrictions in one domain automatically apply to another Geevarghese P. John, Son Of Late P. P. John VS Federal Bank Ltd. , Nedumbassery Branch, Represented By Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Marine Drive, Ernakulam - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1631.
This latest judgment on Section 23(2) Proviso fortifies RDDB's standalone status, freeing bank recoveries from Income Tax Rule 68B shackles. By interpreting statutes independently, courts promote efficiency in debt enforcement while safeguarding procedural fairness.
Disclaimer: This analysis is based on specified judgments Geevarghese P. John, Son Of Late P. P. John VS Federal Bank Ltd. , Nedumbassery Branch, Represented By Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Marine Drive, Ernakulam - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1631Mathew Antony VS Oriental Bank Of Commerce - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1122Ramesh Pal vs IDFC First Bank Limited - 2025 Supreme(MP) 524Ramkrishna Ramnath Firm Kamptee v. G. Lakshmi Narsimhan I. T. O. Nagpur - 1970 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 14 and general principles. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance, as laws may evolve.
Stay informed on evolving debt recovery landscapes to navigate them effectively.
#RDDBAct #DebtRecovery #LegalJudgment
23. ... If the relief of recovery of possession omitted to be asked for, in view of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the Suit must fail for the sole reason. ... The appellant assails the decree and judgment in the above Suit, which were confirmed by the appellate court in A.S.No.17/2021. 2. ... Since the law is abundantly clear, as discussed herein above, when the plaintiffs omit to seek the relief of recovery of possession in tune with the mandate of pr....
It is against the said order, the judgment-debtor came up in C.R.P.No.211/2021. 2. ... ORDER : A decree for recovery of money was put in execution, wherein the judgment-debtor sought protection against issuance of warrant of arrest on the ground of 'no means'. ... In the instant case, a decree for recovery of amount was put in execution, wherein the judgment- debtor raised a contention of 'no means', which was rejected by the trial court on an enquiry and found that he has means to pay....
This is fortified by perusal of Ex.PW-7/A which is the memo regarding the recovery and taking into possession of the Charas with the bag. ... The recovery memo regarding the recovery and taking into possession of the Charas with the bag is on record as Ex. PW-7 /A. This recovery memo has been prepared in the presence of PW-11 Krishan Chand driver, PW-10 Khem Raj conductor, PW-7 Inspector Brijesh Sood and PW-8 Yog Raj. ... In support of this contention, learned Counsel his placed relian....
This is fortified by perusal of Ex.PW-7/A which is the memo regarding the recovery and taking into possession of the Charas with the bag. ... The recovery memo regarding the recovery and taking into possession of the Charas with the bag is on record as Ex. PW-7 /A. This recovery memo has been prepared in the presence of PW-11 Krishan Chand driver, PW-10 Khem Raj conductor, PW-7 Inspector Brijesh Sood and PW-8 Yog Raj. ... In support of this contention, learned Counsel hes placed relian....
... (2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought ... , but also repeatedly thereafter prior to giving of the notice on 23-08-2003. ... At the outset, I must say that there was complete failure on the part of the Magistrate to consider the objection regarding#HL_....
It runs: ... "NOTICE ... Under S. 23(2) of the Indian Income - Tax Act, 1922 / under S.143(2) of the Income - Tax Act, 1961. ... Dated: 6-4-1967. ... No. R. 201. ... To, ... Ramkrishna Ramnath (HUF). Kamptee. ... It was, however, contended that even notices under S.34 have not been issued in the present case and the notices that are issued are under S.23(2) of the Income - Tax Act, 1922 or under S.143(2) of the Income - Tax Act, 1961. ... On 6th of April 1967 the Income - Tax Officer, ....
Despite a contention in the above regard about the illegal possession of the suit properties by respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner did not incorporate a prayer for recovery of possession in the plaint. ... The net effect of granting amendment as prayed for by the petitioner would be giving an opportunity to the petitioner to reagitate the issue regarding the recovery of possession of the suit properties once more before the same forum by circumventing the bar of res judicata which would have come into ... 2#H....
2024:UHC:7350 Judgment Reserved on: 28.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 23.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. ... Expediency cannot override the requirement of fairness, particularly when the consequences of recovery proceedings are coercive in nature. 23. ... Subsequent to the appellate judgment, disputes continued between the parties regarding compliance with the maintenance orders. Proceedings were initiated from time to time, includ....
16.2 Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 19 and 23 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: 12. ... All Interlocutory Applications regarding interim matters stand closed. ... 2.2 In OP (DRT) No.88/2017, the challenge is to the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam, and the order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the Recovery Officer in I.A. No.700/2010 in DRC No.1503/OBC/EKM in O.A. No.71/2002. ... *** **....
Shri Agrawal learned counsel has relied upon the latest judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Fair Style Embroidery Works (supra), wherein the Division Bench has followed the earlier judgment of M/s Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited ... A-23. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is reproduced below:- ''29. ... Even if power of condonation of delay by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act were held not to be applicable,....
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE: 8. Mr. Drupad Patil, learned Amicus Curiae, made following submissions :- i. Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 gives right to the tenant to repair the tenanted premises and to deduct or recover the expenses from the landlord and the proviso prescribed the limit on such deduction or recovery. Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 and second proviso to Sub- Section (2) are very clear. The said proviso specifically provides that the amount deducted from the rent or recoverable in any year shall not exceed one-fourth of the rent payable by the tenant for tha....
A perusal of the said report would show that in course of investigation it was found that the named accused persons Ravi Kumar Singh and Ankit Singh together with Raja Rai had gone to attend a tilak ceremony at village- Singahi. He has submitted his comprehensive report regarding the latest status of investigation as well as the steps taken for recovery of the victim. The report submitted by the SHO has been annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. 9. Later on, a supplementary counter affidavit duly sworn by the Superintendent of Police, Saran has been ....
Therefore, this Court is inclined to apply pay and recovery theory. “Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent-claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. In this connection, it is also apt to mention the judgment reported in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY....
First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed partly by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2007 and thereby sale deeds Ex. D1 and D2 executed by defendant No. 1 and his brother Brij Mohan in favour of defendants No. 2 to 7 have been set aside to the extent of half share in the suit land belonging to defendant No. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.2002 partly decreed the plaintiffs suit for alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 50,000/- with intere....
First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed partly by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2007 and thereby sale deeds Ex. D1 and D2 executed by defendant No. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.2002 partly decreed the plaintiff’s suit for alternative relief of recovery of Rs.50,000 with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 14.2.1995 i.e. the date of agreement till recovery. I and his brother Brij Mohan in favour of defendants No.2 to 7....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
