Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application seeking waiver of pre-deposit under Section 30-A of the RDB Act for filing a review appeal. The Tribunal held that as legal heirs liable for the debt, the appellants must deposit 50% of the debt amount before entertaining the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi
APPEAL/3/2025
ABHA JAIN VS CANARA BANK
| 28.04.2025 | Item no. Supplementary |
|---|---|
| Present: | Ms. Rajeev Mehra, Ld. Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Rajat Jain, Ld. counsel for the appellant. |
| Ms. Seema Gupta, Ld. counsel for the respondent bank. | |
| Mr. Vipin Singh, Ld. counsel for the respondent no.2 Mr. Deepak Jain. |
|
| The m | atter is taken up by this Tribunal through hybrid mode. |
IA no.615/2025.
The present application has been moved on behalf of the appellant praying therein for waiver of deposit under section 30-A of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
2
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
bread and butter and it is the ancestral property of the appellants. It has further been submitted that due to absence of any stable source of income, the appellants were constrained to renovate the subject property and lease it out to a bank and shift to a rented accommodation. It has further been submitted that if the appellants are forced to deposit money as a precondition for their appeal to be heard, it would cause grave prejudice to the appellants. Accordingly, it has been requested to allow the present IA and waive the deposit of money under Section 30-A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
3
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
No.2, 3 besides Late Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain and Late Mrs. Shashi Jain by the Ld. Recovery Officer DRT-III Delhi and as such, Respondent No.2 & Late Mrs. Shashi Jain had appeared in the recovery proceedings and filed their respective affidavit of assets. It has further been submitted that on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain, now deceased, his legal heirs i.e. appellants herein had appeared and filed their respective affidavit of assets/inheritance and Mr. Anand Aggarwal Advocate had appeared and filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the LRs of deceased CD No.2 i.e. Late Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain as well as on behalf of CD No.4 i.e. Mrs. Shashi Jain and CD No.3 was represented by some other advocate. It has further been submitted that Mrs. Shashi Jain, CD No.4 had also expired on 27.03.2024. It has further been submitted that it is pertinent to state that in the recovery proceedings, there was no objection or whisper from the side of the appellants as LRs of deceased CD No.2 Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain that the recovery proceedings were not maintainable against them or that the decree/recovery certificate passed against a dead person was a nullity. It has further been submitted that as such an application was filed by Respondent No.2, Mr. Deepak Jain (CD No.3) for attachment of the immovable property bearing Model Basti, East Park Road, New Delhi110005 belonging to deceased Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain (CD No.2) before Ld. Recovery Officer DRT-I Delhi and after filing of the said application for attachment, the appellants had changed their counsel and filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deletion of their names as legal heirs of deceased CD No.2, Late Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain which was nothing but afterthought and misconceived in nature. It has also been submitted that the said application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was heard by the Ld. RO DRT-I Delhi and the same was dismissed vide reasoned order dated 07.03.2025. It has further been submitted that the main ground in the appeal taken by the appellants is that decree/recovery certificate passed by Ld. DRT-III Delhi on 05.07.2012 is a nullity as same has been passed against a dead person i.e. CD No.2, Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain and it was also one of the ground of the appellants that immovable property bearing property No.13, Model Basti, East Park Road, New Delhi-110005 is an ancestral property and not the self-acquired property of deceased CD No.2. It has further been submitted that nowhere in the OA proceedings, the counsel appearing for CD No.2 to 4 had ever informed to this Tribunal that CD No.2, Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain had expired and in this regard, the provisions of order 22 Rule 10A CPC are relevant which cast duty on the pleader appearing for a party when he comes to know the death of a party
4
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
to inform the court about it whereupon the court shall give notice of such death to the other party and it is only in the recovery proceedings, the appellants had raised the issue of non-substitution of the legal representative of the deceased Defendant No.2 (CD No.2) in the OA before Ld. DRT-III Delhi. It has further been submitted that it is an admitted position that Mrs. Shashi Jain was Defendant No.4 in the OA No.52/2005 who was the wife of deceased Defendant No.2 and as such, Defendant No.4 was one of the legal representative of the deceased Defendant No.2. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Hussain (Dead) by LRs Vs. Gopibai & Ors., MANU/SC/1092/2008. It has also been submitted that the appellants had not raised any objection regarding their substitution in the recovery proceedings on 26.052017 and it is only as an afterthought and in a malafide manner to delay and defeat the legitimate recovery of the answering Respondent bank, a belated application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been filed after 6-7 years. It has also been submitted that as such the appellants had never challenged their impleadment or substitution by the Ld. Recovery Officer in the recovery proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation. Ld. counsel for the respondent bank has also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Suren Prasad Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. Santibai Jaiswal & Ors. relying upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Gurudev Singh Ashok Kumar MANU/SC/0612/1991 wherein it was held that the party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the court within the prescribed period of limitation. It has also been submitted if the statutory time limits expires, the cutoff cannot give the declaration sought for. It has also been observed that in the words of Lord Diplock "the order would be presumed to be valid unless the presumption was rebutted in competent legal proceedings by a party entitled to sue" and as such the final order dated 05.07.2012 had already attained finality and the Ld. Recovery Officer has no power to amend the recovery certificate passed by the then Hon'ble PO DRT-III Delhi in OA No.52/2005 and reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh & Ors. MANU/SC/0008/1974. It has further been submitted that as such, the decree/recovery certificate passed against deceased Defendant No.2 Late Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain cannot be treated as a nullity by the Tribunal as his estate was sufficiently represented by his wife Mrs. Shashi Jain Defendant No.4 in OA No.52/2005, hence the application under Order 1
SeJ-
5
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
Rule 10 CPC war rightly dismissed by the Ld. Recovery Officer DRT-1 Delhi in TRC 1669/2022 vide his order dated 07.03.2025. Accordingly, it has been requested to dismiss the present application.
6
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
Shashi Jain, Ms. Vandana Jain, Ms. Abha Jain, Ms. Meenakshi Jain (the Appellants herein) appeared in the year 2017 have filed their respective affidavit of assets/inheritance. It has further been submitted that since 2017 all the LRs of Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.4, who is the wife of Defendant No.2 and mother of LRs of Defendant no.2 are regularly appearing and being represented through advocate before the Ld. Recovery Officer in the Recovery Proceedings. It has further been submitted that on 26.05.2017, the respondent no.1/Bank has filed the amended memo of parties vide diary no.6550 impleading the aforementioned legal heirs of CD no.2. Smt. Shashi Jain who is wife of CD no.2 has been impleaded in dual capacity as one of the legal heir of CD no.2 and also as CD no.4 in her individual capacity. It has further been submitted that the no.2 who is also the husband of Defendant no.4 has appeared in the OA proceedings and contested the OA and the final order against Defendant no.2 was passed on 05.07.2012 whereas he was already died on 20.05.2010. It has further been submitted that during the pendency of OA proceedings, the factum of death of Defendant no.2 was never informed to this Tribunal either by the Counsel of Defendant no.2 or by Defendant no.4 who is the wife of Defendant no.2 and even, Defendant no.4 who was the wife of Defendant no.2 kept on participating in the proceedings before the Tribunal but she kept mum and never intimated the death of Defendant no.2, even after the issuance of recovery certificate, when a demand notice was served upon Defendant no.2, the appellants who are the legal heirs of deceased Defendant no.2 appeared and filed their affidavit of assets/inheritance on 04.05.2017 and the plea that the decree against their late father is a nullity was not taken by them, even otherwise the Appellants herein are bound by the final order dated 05.07.2012 in the capacity of the legal heirs of Defendant No.2. Shashi Jain who was alive at the time of passing of final order dated 05.07.2012. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.2 has relied upon the judgment (i) P Jesaya (Dead) by LRs Vs. Sub-Collector and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 431. (ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of B. K. Basha Vs. Mohamed Ali and Ors. Dated 13.03.2018 in CRP (NDP) No.771/2014 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014. It has further been submitted that there is nothing on record nor have the appellants placed on record any evidence, much less cogent evidence to prove that the factum of death of Defendant no.2 on 20.05.2010 was ever brought to the notice of the Tribunal before passing of judgment and decree dated 05.07.2012 and the onus is upon the Appellants to show that the death of CD no.2 was duly intimated to
7
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
the Tribunal as well as the Bank. It has further been submitted that the death of Defendant no.2 was firstly brought to the knowledge of this Forum after the service of demand notice in the year 2017. It has further been submitted that till the time of filing of application for attachment of personal property of Defendantno.2, the LRs of Defendantno.2 have never raised any objection qua their impleadment in the present proceedings. It has further been submitted that the Recovery proceedings are going against the legal heirs/Appellants herein in the capacity of Legal Heirs of Defendant No.2 and 4 and the judgment dated 05.07.2012 has already attained finality as no appeal has been preferred against the said judgment. It has also been submitted that the Defendant no.4 who was also one of the legal heir of deceased DefendantNo.2 had duly contested the OA and an Advocate was also appearing on their behalf before the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid submissions it is evident that the Appellants are the legal heirs of the Defendant No.2 and 4 and therefore are under a legal liability to satisfy the final order dated 05.07.2012 and the Recovery certificate No. 1669 of 2022 and the legal heirs of a deceased person are just stepping into the shoes of late deceased.
8
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
future interest @16.25% p.a. against the defendants including respondents No.2 & 3, Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain, now deceased and Mrs. Shashi Jain (now deceased being OA No.52/2005). It has further been argued that the respondent No.3 was the borrower company and it had availed credit/term loan facility from the respondent no.1/bank and the respondents No.2 & 3, Late Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain and Late Mrs. Shashi Jain had stood as guarantors to secure the said credit facility and Mrs. Shashi Jain was the wife of Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain (CD no.2) who was impleaded as defendant No.4 in the OA No.52/2005. It has further been argued that after completion of evidence by both sides, the final order dated 05.07.2012 was passed by the then Ld. PO DRT-III Delhi thereby allowing the OA of the respondent no.1/bank for Rs.20,39,988/- along with simple interest @14.25% p.a. from the date of filing of the OA till realization directing the respondents No.2, 3 besides Late Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain and Late Mrs. Shashi Jain to pay the amount within 30 days failing which same was recoverable from the sale of the hypothecated assets besides their movable and immovable assets, thereafter the recovery proceedings were initiated by the respondent no.1/bank and demand notice was issued against the certificate debtors i.e. respondents No.2, 3 besides Late Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain and Late Mrs. Shashi Jain by the Ld. Recovery Officer DRT-III Delhi and as such, Respondent No.2 & Late Mrs. Shashi Jain had appeared in the recovery proceedings and filed their respective affidavit of assets. It has further been argued that on behalf of Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain, now deceased, his legal heirs i.e. appellants herein had appeared and filed their respective affidavit of assets/inheritance and Mr. Anand Aggarwal Advocate had appeared and filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the LRs of deceased CD No.2 i.e. Late Mr. Mahesh Kumar Jain as well as on behalf of CD No.4 i.e. Mrs. Shashi Jain and CD No.3 was represented by some other advocate. It has further been argued that Mrs. Shashi Jain, CD No.4 had also expired on 27.03.2024 and in the recovery proceedings, there was no objection or whisper from the side of the appellants as LRs of deceased CD No.2 Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain that the recovery proceedings were not maintainable against them or that the decree/recovery certificate passed against a dead person was a nullity and as such an application was filed by Respondent No.2, Mr. Deepak Jain (CD No.3) for attachment of the immovable property bearing Model Basti, East Park Road, New Delhi-110005 belonging to deceased Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain (CD No.2) before Ld. Recovery Officer DRT-I Delhi and after filing of the said application for attachment, the
9
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
appellants had changed their counsel and filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deletion of their names as legal heirs of deceased CD No.2, Late Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain which was nothing but afterthought and misconceived in nature and the said application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was heard by the Ld. RO DRT-I Delhi and the same was dismissed vide reasoned order dated 07.03.2025. It has further been argued that the main ground in the appeal taken by the appellants is that decree/recovery certificate passed by Ld. DRT-III Delhi on 05.07.2012 is a nullity as same has been passed against a dead person i.e. CD No.2, Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain and it was also one of the ground of the appellants that immovable property bearing property No.13, Model Basti, East Park Road, New Delhi110005 is an ancestral property and not the self-acquired property of deceased CD No.2 and nowhere in the OA proceedings, the counsel appearing for CD No.2 to 4 had ever informed to this Tribunal that CD No.2, Mr. Mahesh Chand Jain had expired and it is only in the recovery proceedings, the appellants had raised the issue of non-substitution of the legal representative of the deceased Defendant No.2 (CD No.2) in the OA before Ld. DRT-III Delhi.
Section 30A: Deposit of amount of debts due for filing appeal against orders of the Recovery Officer:- Where an appeal is preferred against any order of the Recovery Officer, under section 30, by any person from whom the amount of debts is due to a bank or financial institution or consortium of banks
10
Appeal no.3 of 2025.
or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debts due as determined by the Tribunal.
File be consigned to record.
(GOVINDLBAE SFIARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-I, Delhi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present appeal against the recovery officer's order can be entertained without the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 30-A of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions
Whether the appellants, being legal heirs of the deceased certificate debtor, fall within the definition of 'any person from whom the amount of debt is due' under Section 30-A.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Hussain (Dead) by LRs Vs. Gopibai & Ors.Referred¶16
Mohd. Hussain (Dead) by LRs Vs. Gopibai & Ors., MANU/SC/1092/2008
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at CuttackRelied on¶16
Suren Prasad Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. Santibai Jaiswal & Ors.
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Gurudev Singh Ashok KumarRelied on¶16
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Gurudev Singh Ashok Kumar, MANU/SC/0612/1991
Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh & Ors.Relied on¶16
Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh & Ors., MANU/SC/0008/1974
P Jesaya (Dead) by LRs Vs. Sub-Collector and Anr.Relied on¶27
P Jesaya (Dead) by LRs Vs. Sub-Collector and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 431 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Abha Jain
Canara Bank
Deepak Jain
Govindlbay Sfarm
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
