Holding

A recovery certificate issued by a DRT before the 2016 amendment of the RDB Act does not qualify as a decree or order for the purpose of initiating insolvency proceedings under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.

Summary

HDFC Bank Limited sought to initiate insolvency proceedings against Kishore K. Mehta under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, relying on a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in 2004. The bank argued that the term "decree or order" in the statute should be interpreted broadly to include such a certificate, especially in view of Section 19(22A) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which was inserted in 2016. The Supreme Court held that the 2016 amendment was prospective and could not be applied to certificates issued before its enactment; consequently, a pre‑amended recovery certificate does not qualify as a decree or order for the purpose of Section 9(2). The Court emphasized that insolvency notices must be based on a court decree or order as defined in the CPC and that the rights of parties are determined as of the date the suit is instituted. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the earlier High Court order upholding the invalidity of the insolvency notice was affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether a recovery certificate issued by a Debt Recovery Tribunal constitutes a "decree or order" under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.
Whether Section 19(22A) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, inserted in 2016, can be applied retrospectively to recovery certificates issued prior to its amendment.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether an insolvency notice u/s.9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 can be issued on the basis of a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal; whether a “decree or order” will include a recovery certificate issued by a DRT under of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act). Headnotes† Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – s.9(2) – Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act – s.19(22A) – One ‘BDL’ availed credit facilities from a consortium of 15 banks, including the Appellant-Bank –

Subjects

Insolvency noticeRecovery certificateDebt Recovery TribunalPresidency Towns Insolvency ActRecovery of Debts and Bankruptcy ActSection 9(2)Section 19(22A)Decree or orderPre‑amended RDB ActCasus omissusRights crystallizedBanking lawBankruptcy

Judgment

[2026] 8 S.C.R. 204 : 2026 INSC 688

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited
v.
Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs.
(Civil Appeal No. 4211 of 2010)
13 July 2026
[Dipankar Datta* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether an insolvency notice u/s.9(2) of the Presidency Towns
Insolvency Act, 1909 can be issued on the basis of a recovery
certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal; whether a
“decree or order” will include a recovery certificate issued by a
DRT under the pre-amended Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy
Act (RDB Act).

Headnotes†
Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – s.9(2) – Recovery
of Debts and Bankruptcy Act – s.19(22A) – One ‘BDL’ availed
credit facilities from a consortium of 15 banks, including the
Appellant-Bank – The facilities were secured by mortgage
through deposit of title deeds, and the original respondent-
Director of ‘BDL’, along with other directors, executed
personal guarantees – Upon default, and after the invocation
of personal guarantees failed, Appellant-Bank approached
DRT which directed issuance of a recovery certificate against
the original respondent, followed by a recovery certificate
in 2004 – Based on the recovery certificate, the Insolvency
Registrar issued an insolvency notice u/s.9(2), Insolvency
Act – Notice challenged by respondent contending that a
recovery certificate of the DRT could not form the basis of
an insolvency notice – Single Judge held that no insolvency
notice could have been issued on the basis of a recovery
certificate – Order upheld by Division Bench – Challenge
to – Appellant-Bank contended that s.19(22)A, RDB Act,
included vide an amendment in 2016, explicitly provides that
a recovery certificate issued by a DRT is deemed to be a
decree of the Court for the purpose of initiation of insolvency
proceedings under any law:

* Author
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 205

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Held: Insertion of sub-section (22A) in s.19 of the RDB Act
instead of supporting the Appellant-Bank demolishes its case –
s.19(22A), as it now stands, aids in settling the issue – The
fact that Parliament found it necessary in 2016 to insert sub-
section (22A) in s.19 of the RDB Act for the express purpose
of equating a recovery certificate with a ‘decree or order’ is
clear legislative recognition that such equivalence did not exist
earlier – By necessary implication, a recovery certificate issued
prior to the 2016 amendment could not form the basis for initiating
insolvency proceedings – To hold otherwise would be to supply
what the legislature omitted- a clear casus omissus – Moreover,
the amendment has not been given retrospective effect – The
issue herein must be decided on the basis of the law as it stood
when the litigation commenced – A claim which was untenable
on the date the suitor entered the portals of the Court cannot
become tenable simply because a fortuitous event during the
pendency of the trial has made it so – The lis must be decided
on the basis of rights and liabilities as they stood on the date
of institution, unless the statute or equity of the case otherwise
requires – s.19(22A) of the RDB Act does not aid the Appellant-
Bank – Appeal dismissed. [Para 14, 15, 18, 19, 23]

Words and Phrases – Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy
Act – s.19(22A) – “recovery certificate issued by … under …
shall be deemed to be decree or order for … initiation of …
insolvency proceedings … under any law for the time being
force …”:
Held: Respondents are also right in pointing out that s.19(22A),
even if it were to apply on its very terms, the Appellant-Bank
is not entitled to any relief – The phrase “recovery certificate
issued by … under … shall be deemed to be decree or order
for … initiation of … insolvency proceedings … under any law
for the time being force …” has been emphasised in support of
the proposition that the stage of initiation of proceedings did not
fructify because the notice of insolvency itself, issued u/s.9(2) of
the Insolvency Act, stood quashed by the High Court. [Para 22]

Relief – Rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date
of commencement of litigation:
Held: The right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date
a suitor institutes the legal proceeding – The right of a party
206 [2026] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

is determined by the facts as they exist on the date the action
is instituted – Granting the presence of such facts, then he is
entitled to its enforcement – Later developments cannot defeat
his right because, had the court found his facts to be true the day
he sued he would have got his decree – The Court’s procedural
delays cannot deprive him of legal justice or right crystallised in
the initial cause of action – Presidency Towns Insolvency Act,
1909 – s.9(2). [Para 16]

Case Law Cited
Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd. [2006] Supp. 8 SCR 178 :
(2006) 13 SCC 322; Rameshwar and Ors. v. Jot Ram & Ors.
[1976] 1 SCR 847 : AIR 1976 SC 49; Pasupuleti Venkatesw
Arlu v. The Motor & General Traders [1975] 3 SCR 958 : AIR
1975 SC 1409 – relied on.
Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. [2002] Supp. 5 SCR 530 : (2003)
1 SCC 726; Sundaram Finance Limited v. Ashok D Soniminde,
Mumbai, order dated 10th January, 2008 in SLP (Civil) 23495
of 2007; Ebrahim Aboobaker and Another v. Tek Chand Dolwani
[1953] 1 SCR 691 : (1953) 1 SCC 621 – referred to.

List of Acts
Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909; Recovery of Debts Due
to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Recovery of Debts
and Bankruptcy Act).

List of Keywords
Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909;
Insolvency notice under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns
Insolvency Act, 1909; Section 19(22)A of the Recovery of Debts
and Bankruptcy Act; Pre-amended RDB Act; Recovery certificate;
Recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal;
“decree or order”; Recovery certificate issued by a DRT under
pre-amended RDB Act; Recovery certificate issued prior to 2016
amendment could not form the basis for initiating insolvency
proceedings; casus omissus; Law as it stood when the litigation
commenced; Rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date
of commencement of litigation; Right to relief; Later developments
cannot defeat right; Fortuitous event.
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 207

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4211 of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2008 of the High
Court of Bombay in AN No. 710 of 2007

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Gupta, Ms. Aditi Pundhir, Raghu
Agarwal, Alok Tripathi.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Dhruv Mehta, Gautam Narayan, Sr. Advs., M/s Chambers
Of Kartik Seth, Girish Bhardwaj, Varun Singh, Gaurav Nair,
Ms. Nishtha Kumar, Ms. Veera Mathai, Ms. Bhairavi Sn, Shrom Sethi,
Mrs. Archana Singh, Imran Khan, Inam Ul Haq, Varun Agarwal,
Tarun Mehra, Dakshesh Vyas, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. Asmita
Singh, Shivendra Singh, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Nishe Rajen
Shonker, Ashish Wad, Manoj Wad, Ms. Swati Arya, Deepanshu
Verma, M/s J S Wad And Co, Mrs. Bina Gupta.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. The issue in the present appeal, at the instance of HDFC Bank
Limited1, is whether an insolvency notice under Section 9(2) of the
Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 19092 can be issued on the basis
of a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal3.
2. At the threshold, Section 9(2) of the Insolvency Act is reproduced
below for ease of understanding:
9. Acts of insolvency. –
(1) …

1 Appellant-Bank
2 Insolvency Act
3 DRT
208 [2026] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1),
a debtor commits an act of insolvency if a creditor,
who has obtained a decree or order against him for
the payment of money (being a decree or order which
has become final and the execution whereof has not
been stayed), has served on him a notice (hereafter
in this section referred to as the Insolvency notice) as
provided in sub-section (3) and the debtor does not
comply with that notice within the period specified
therein: …
(3) …
(4) …
(5) …
(emphasis ours)

3. In brief, Section 9(2) of the Insolvency Act provides that a debtor
commits an “act of insolvency” where a creditor has obtained a
“decree or order” against the debtor for payment of money. In the
present case however, the Appellant-Bank sought to proceed against
Kishore K. Mehta4 by relying not on a “decree or order” in the strict
statutory sense, but on the strength of a recovery certificate issued
by the DRT under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (rechristened as the Recovery of Debts and
Bankruptcy Act5). We are tasked to decide whether a “decree or
order” will include a recovery certificate issued by a DRT under the
pre-amended RDB Act.
4. Facts in brief are these. The original respondent was a director of
Beautiful Diamonds Ltd., which had availed credit facilities from a
consortium of 15 banks, including the Appellant-Bank, for its diamond
business. The facilities were secured by mortgage through deposit of
title deeds, and the original respondent, along with other directors,
executed personal guarantees. Upon default, and after the invocation
of personal guarantees failed, the Appellant-Bank approached the

4 original respondent
5 RDB Act
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 209

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai6 by filing an application7. By an
order dated 26th October, 2004, the DRT, Bombay directed issuance
of a recovery certificate for Rs. 14,74,51,929.35 against the original
respondent, followed by a recovery certificate dated 30th November,
2004. Based on the recovery certificate, the Insolvency Registrar
issued an insolvency notice8 under Section 9(2) of the Insolvency Act
upon an approach being made by the Appellant-Bank. This notice
is the core of this litigation. The original respondent challenged the
notice before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay9 by taking out
a Notice of Motion10 under Section 9(5)11, contending that a recovery
certificate of the DRT could not form the basis of an insolvency
notice. A Single Judge, while keeping the notice of motion pending,
considered the present issue and later held that no insolvency notice
could have been issued on the basis of a recovery certificate12, and
the Division Bench, vide the impugned order13 upheld the order of the
Single Judge. Aggrieved, the Appellant-Bank preferred the present
appeal14, whereupon leave was granted on 4th May, 2010. Vide
order dated 11th July, 2008, this Court had stayed the proceedings
in Notice of Motion No. 40 of 2007 and such stay was continued
vide order dated 4th May, 2010.
5. During pendency of the appeal, the original respondent died on 20th
May, 2024. Application dated 11th August, 2024 of the Appellant-
Bank for substitution of the legal representatives of the original

6 DRT, Bombay
7 Original Application No. 146 of 2002
8 No. N/224 of 2006
9 High Court
10 No. 40 of 2007
11 (5) Any person served with an insolvency notice may, within the period specified therein for its compliance,
apply to the Court to set aside the insolvency notice on any of the following grounds, namely:—
(a) …;
(b) that he is entitled to have the decree or order set aside under any law providing for the relief of
indebtedness and that—
(i) he has made an application before the competent authority under such law for the setting
aside of the decree or order; or
(ii) the time allowed for the making of such application has not expired;
(c) that the decree or order is not executable under the provisions of any law referred to in clause
(b) on the date of the application.
Explanation. ….
12 vide common order dated 4th September, 2007 in Notice of Motion No.40 Of 2007 in Notice No. N/224
of 2006 and other connected matters
13 judgment and order dated 30th June 2007 in Appeal No. 710/2007 by the High Court
14 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18860/2008
210 [2026] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

respondent (since deceased) was allowed by the Registrar on 10th
February, 2025. Respondents 1.1 to 1.4 were substituted in place of
the deceased original respondent. They are his three sons and wife.
6. The Single Judge as well as the Division bench of the High Court
relied on the decision of this Court in Paramjeet Singh Patheja v.
ICDS Ltd.15, wherein the issues involved were: whether an arbitration
award is a “decree” for the purpose of Section 9, and whether
insolvency proceedings under Section 9(2) of the Insolvency Act
can be initiated based on an arbitral award. This Court answered
both the questions in the negative and held that the words “decree
or order” cannot include an arbitral award.
7. The case of the Appellant-Bank is that:
(i) In Section 9(2), the legislature has only used the word “decree
or order” and not ‘decree or order of a Court’, whereas in
Section 9(1)(e & h), the term “Decree of any Court” is used;
therefore, the term is wide enough to cover a recovery certificate
issued by the DRT, Mumbai. By using two different words in the
same section, the legislature intended two different meanings.
(ii) Prior to the 1978 Amendment to the Insolvency Act which
introduced Section 9(2) to 9(5), Section 9(1)(e) and (h) referred
to a “decree for payment of money” “of any Court.” However,
while introducing Section 9(2), Parliament deliberately omitted
the phrase “of any Court” and added the words “or order.”
This indicates a conscious legislative intent to include not
only decrees of civil courts but also orders passed by judicial,
quasi-judicial, or statutory authorities.
(iii) Reliance placed by the High Court on Paramjeet Singh
Patheja (supra) is misplaced as it was delivered in the context
of arbitration proceedings and not the RDB Act.
(iv) The RDB Act transferred jurisdiction of bank and financial
institution claims above Rs.10 lakhs from the civil courts to
the DRT, while the civil courts retained jurisdiction for smaller
claims. This shows that the DRT effectively steps into the role
of the civil court for high value recovery matters. It would be
anomalous if a civil court decree for a small amount could

15 (2006) 13 SCC 322
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 211

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

support insolvency proceedings, but a DRT judgment or
recovery certificate for a much larger bank debt could not.
Therefore, since the DRT has all the trappings of a civil
court, a recovery certificate issued by it should be treated as
equivalent to a civil court decree for relevant legal purposes.
(v) Where two statutes operate in different fields and there is no
direct conflict, both must be allowed to operate. The Insolvency
Act and the RDB Act occupy different fields: one concerns
insolvency status and the collective rights of the creditors, the
other concerns bank debt adjudication and recovery.
8. Resting his case on the above points, Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior
counsel for the Appellant-Bank, sought appellate interference and
prayed for setting aside of the impugned order of the High Court.
9. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for some of Respondents
opposed the contentions while praying for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having perused the reasoning given in Paramjeet Singh Patheja
(supra) as also the reasoning given by the Single Judge and the
Division Bench, inter alia, following the said decision, we find no
reason to disagree with the same.
11. True it is, the question involved in Paramjeet Singh Pathreja (supra)
arose with respect to an arbitral award; nevertheless, its ratio rests
on wider principle. This Court noted that: (i) the Insolvency Act must
be strictly construed as insolvency has grave civil consequences;
(ii) the term “decree or order” must be understood in light of the
definition contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and (iii)
insolvency notice is not a mode of execution/enforcement. Relevant
excerpts from the decision are reproduced below:
17. We are of the view that the Presidency Towns
Insolvency Act, 1909 is a statute weighed down with
the grave consequence of “civil death” for a person
sought to be adjudged an insolvent and therefore the
Act has to be construed strictly. The Arbitration Act was
in force when the PTIA came into operation. Therefore
it can be seen that the lawmakers were conscious of
what a “decree”, “order” and an “award” are. Also the
fundamental difference between “courts” and “arbitrators”
was also clear as back as in 1909.
212 [2026] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

20. Sections 2(2) and 2(14) CPC define what “decree”
and “order” mean. For seeing whether a decision or
determination is a decree or order, it must necessarily
fall in the language of the definition. Section 2(2) CPC
defines “decree” to mean…
21. The words “court”, “adjudication” and “suit”
conclusively show that only a court can pass a decree
and that too only in a suit commenced by a plaint and
after adjudication of a dispute by a judgment pronounced
by the court. It is obvious that an arbitrator is not a court,
an arbitration is not an adjudication and, therefore, an
award is not a decree.
30. The PTIA, 1909 does not define “decree” or “order”
for the simple reason that the meaning of these terms
has been well settled since the Civil Procedure Code
of 1859 and 1882 and had been again defined in the
Civil Procedure Code of 1908. The other indicators that
an award of arbitrators is not intended to be a “decree”
or “order” are:
(i) Sections 2(a) and (b) define “creditor” to include
a decree-holder and a “debt” to include a judgment-
debt and “debtor” to include a judgment-debtor.
(ii) It is quite clear from Section 33 CPC that a
decree, being the formal expression of adjudication
by a court, follows only upon pronouncement
of judgment by the court. It is equally clear that
courts and judges render judgments; arbitrators
only make awards.
(iii) Sections 9(e) and (h) put the matter beyond
controversy by expressly mentioning “decree of any
court for the payment of money”. Thus as enacted
in 1909, the Insolvency Act dealt only with debtors
who had suffered decrees by any court for the
payment of money.
33. The words “litigant”, “money decree”, “judgment-
debtor”, “decretal amount” and “decree-holder” plainly
show that Parliament intended to deal with litigants
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 213

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

who do not pay amounts decreed by civil courts. There
is no reference at all to arbitrations and awards in the
Statement of Objects and Reasons and in sub-sections
(2) to (5) of Section 9, which were introduced in 1978
by Parliament.
34. As already noticed, “litigation” has been held to mean
“a legal action, including all proceedings therein, initiated
in a court of law”. Obviously therefore Parliament had
in mind debts due to “litigants” i.e. debts due by reason
of decrees of courts. It is well settled that courts, unlike
arbitrators or Arbitral Tribunals, are the third great organ
under the Constitution—legislative, executive and judicial.
Courts are institutions set up by the State in the exercise
of the judicial power of the State, which will be seen
from the cases mentioned hereinbelow: …
41. Issuance of a notice under the Insolvency Act is
fraught with serious consequences: it is intended to
bring about a drastic change in the status of the person
against whom a notice is issued viz. to declare him an
insolvent with all the attendant disabilities. Therefore,
firstly, such a notice was intended to be issued only
after a regularly constituted court, a component of
the judicial organ established for the dispensation of
justice, has passed a decree or order for the payment
of money. Secondly, a notice under the Insolvency Act
is not a mode of enforcing a debt; enforcement is done
by taking steps for execution available under CPC for
realising monies.
12. Accordingly, this Court reasoned that an arbitral award is not a
“decree or order”. It is true that one more reason which weighed
with the Court was that when the Insolvency Act was enacted, an
arbitration law was already in force and, therefore, the lawmakers,
being aware of the meaning of an “award”, consciously chose to
exclude it from the Insolvency Act. This is not the situation in the
present case, as the concept of a recovery certificate came into
existence only after the RDB Act was enacted in 1993. Be that as
it may, in view of the wider ratio noted above, this distinction is of
no consequence.
214 [2026] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

13. Mr. Gopal Jain impressed upon us that Section 19(22)A of the RDB
Act, which was included vide an amendment in the year 201616,
explicitly provides that a recovery certificate issued by a DRT is
deemed to be a decree of the Court for the purpose of initiation of
insolvency proceedings under any law. Section 19(22A) is reproduced
below:
(22A) Any recovery certificate issued by the Presiding
Officer under sub-section (22) shall be deemed to be
decree or order of the Court for the purposes of initiation
of winding up proceedings against a company registered
under the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) or Limited
Liability Partnership registered under the Limited
Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009) or insolvency
proceedings against any individual or partnership firm
under any law for the time being in force, as the case
may be.
14. Insertion of sub-section (22A) in Section 19 of the RDB Act, we
are inclined to the view, instead of supporting the Appellant-Bank
demolishes its case. Section 19(22A), as it now stands, aids in
settling the issue. The fact that Parliament found it necessary in
2016 to insert sub-section (22A) in Section 19 of the RDB Act for
the express purpose of equating a recovery certificate with a ‘decree
or order’ is clear legislative recognition that such equivalence did
not exist earlier. By necessary implication, a recovery certificate
issued prior to the 2016 amendment could not form the basis for
initiating insolvency proceedings. To hold otherwise would be to
supply what the legislature omitted – a clear casus omissus. That
apart, it is significant that the amendment has not been given
retrospective effect. Matters would perhaps have been simpler, had
the amendment been made earlier.
15. Additionally, we hold that the issue emerging from the present
appeal must be decided on the basis of the law as it stood when
the litigation commenced.

16 Act 44 of 2016
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 215

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

16. To support this conclusion, we rely on Rameshwar v. Jot Ram17,
which quoted P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders18:
“it is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief
must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal
proceeding”. This Court further went on to observe that it is an
emphatic statement that the right of a party is determined by the
facts as they exist on the date the action is instituted. Granting the
presence of such facts, then he is entitled to its enforcement. Later
developments cannot defeat his right because, had the court found
his facts to be true the day he sued he would have got his decree.
The Court’s procedural delays cannot deprive him of legal justice
or right crystallised in the initial cause of action.
17. To similar effect is the decision in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P.19.
The relevant passage from such decision reads as follows:
7. … The ordinary rule of litigation is that the rights of the
parties stand crystallized on the date of commencement
of litigation and the right to relief should be decided by
reference to the date on which the petitioner entered the
portals of the court. A petitioner, though entitled to relief
in law, may yet be denied relief in equity because of
subsequent or intervening events i.e. the events between
the commencement of litigation and the date of decision.
The relief to which the petitioner is held entitled may have
been rendered redundant by lapse of time or may have
been rendered incapable of being granted by change
in law. There may be other circumstances which render
it inequitable to grant the petitioner any relief over the
respondents because of the balance tilting against the
petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities
on the date of judgment. Third-party interests may have
been created or allowing relief to the claimant may result
in unjust enrichment on account of events happening
in-between. Else the relief may not be denied solely on
account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial

17 AIR 1976 SC 49
18 AIR 1975 SC 1409
19 (2003) 1 SCC 726
216 [2026] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

or quasi-judicial forum and for no fault of the petitioner.
A plaintiff or petitioner having been found entitled to a
right to relief, the court would as an ordinary rule try to
place the successful party in the same position in which
he would have been if the wrong complained against
would not have been done to him. …
18. If denying a suitor relief based on accrual of post-natal events
because of the Court’s delay to decide the lis is impermissible, by
the same logic, the converse must also hold. A claim which was
untenable on the date the suitor entered the portals of the Court
cannot become tenable simply because a fortuitous event during
the pendency of the trial has made it so. The lis must be decided
on the basis of rights and liabilities as they stood on the date of
institution, unless the statute or equity of the case otherwise requires.
19. We, therefore, hold that Section 19(22A) of the RDB Act does not
aid the Appellant-Bank.
20. Consequently, the law laid down in Paramjeet Singh Patheja
(supra) applies with full force. We are, therefore, unable to accept
the submission advanced by Mr. Jain.
21. We place on record Mr. Jain’s fair submission that Paramjeet Singh
Patheja (supra) was doubted by this Court in Sundaram Finance
Limited v Ashok D Soniminde, Mumbai20 but subsequently, vide
order dated 23rd April, 201521, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court felt
that “that the judgment delivered in the case of Paramjeet Singh
(supra), does not require any reconsideration.”
22. Before parting, we record that Mr. Mehta is also right in pointing out
that Section 19(22A), even if it were to apply on its very terms, the
Appellant-Bank is not entitled to any relief. The phrase “recovery
certificate issued by … under … shall be deemed to be decree or
order for … initiation of … insolvency proceedings … under any
law for the time being force …” has been emphasised by him in
support of the proposition that the stage of initiation of proceedings
did not fructify because the notice of insolvency itself, issued under
Section 9(2) of the Insolvency Act, stood quashed by the High Court.

20 order dated 10th January, 2008 in SLP (Civil) 23495 of 2007
21 Civil Appeal No.485 OF 2008
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 217

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

23. We, thus, dismiss the present appeal. The proceedings in notice of
motion before the Single Judge, if pending, will stand closed qua
the deceased original respondent.
24. Along with the deceased original respondent, his two sons
(Respondents 1.2 and 1.3) were also certificate debtors. However,
the Appellant-Bank proceeded only against the original respondent
(since deceased). Though the lis did survive qua the deceased
original respondent in view of the observation22 made in the decision
of this Court in Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand Dolwani23, no
order is required to be made now against the Respondents 1.2 and
1.3 in view of dismissal of the appeal. Appellant-Bank, if so advised,
can work out its remedies against them, in accordance with law, if
not barred by limitation or otherwise.
25. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey

22 the principle underlying the insolvency law seems to be that the death of the insolvent during the
pendency of the application for insolvency does not cause the proceedings to abate but that they must
be continued so that his property could be administered for the benefit of the creditors.
23 (1953) 1 SCC 621