H.D.F.C. BANK LIMITED
Vs.
KISHORE K. MEHTA (DEAD) THR. LRS.
( Before : Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )
Civil Appeal No. 4211 of 2010 [Arising Out of SLP(Civil) No. 18860 of 2008]
Decided on : 13-07-2026
A. Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 — Section 9(2) — "Decree or order" — Whether includes a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (pre-2016 amendment) — Held, no — Insolvency Act, being weighed with grave civil consequence of "civil death", must be strictly construed — Expression "decree or order" must bear the meaning assigned under Ss. 2(2) and 2(14), CPC, requiring adjudication by a "court" in a "suit" — A DRT recovery certificate, not being a decree or order of a court within this meaning, cannot found an insolvency notice under S. 9(2) — Ratio of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322 (rendered qua arbitral awards) held to rest on a wider principle applicable equally to DRT recovery certificates — Impugned judgment of Division Bench, Bombay High Court, affirming Single Judge's quashing of insolvency notice, upheld. (Paras 3, 10-12, 20)
B. Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 — Section 19(22-A) [inserted by Act 44 of 2016] — Deeming fiction equating DRT recovery certificate with a decree/order of court for purposes of insolvency/winding-up proceedings — Held, insertion of sub-section (22-A) in 2016, instead of aiding Bank, demonstrates legislative recognition that no such equivalence existed prior thereto — Amendment not given retrospective effect — Casus omissus cannot be supplied by courts — Recovery certificate issued in 2004, prior to the amendment, cannot be equated with a decree or order for invoking S. 9(2) of the Insolvency Act. (Paras 13-14, 19)
C. Interpretation of Statutes — Vested rights — Date for determining — Rights and liabilities of parties to a lis crystallise on the date of institution of proceedings and must ordinarily be adjudicated with reference to the law as it stood on that date — Subsequent legislative change (here, insertion of S. 19(22-A), RDB Act in 2016) cannot retrospectively validate a cause of action that was not maintainable when initiated — Converse of the principle that delay in adjudication should not deprive a litigant of relief otherwise due — Rameshwar v. Jot Ram, AIR 1976 SC 49; P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1409; Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P., (2003) 1 SCC 726, relied on. (Paras 15-18)
D. Precedent — Doubt expressed, effect of — Correctness of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322 doubted in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Ashok D. Soniminde — Subsequently, a 3-Judge Bench, by order dated 23-4-2015 in Civil Appeal No. 485 of 2008, held that Paramjeet Singh Patheja (supra) did not require reconsideration — Ratio in Paramjeet Singh Patheja reaffirmed as good law and applied. (Para 21)
E. Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 — Death of certificate-debtor pending proceedings, effect of — Death of an insolvent/certificate-debtor during pendency of insolvency proceedings does not cause abatement; proceedings continue for administration of the estate for benefit of creditors — However, since appeal itself dismissed on merits, no further order required against co-certificate-debtors (sons of deceased) who were not proceeded against by the Bank — Liberty reserved to Bank to pursue remedies against them in accordance with law, subject to limitation — Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand Dolwani, (1953) 1 SCC 621, relied on. (Paras 5, 24)
