In Re: Achath Sankaran Nair

.....that the legislature intended that there would be automatic stay of recovery proceedings by bank under section 13(4) on filing an appeal by borrower under section 17. use of the expressions if and then under section 17 would not mean that the bank can take one or more measures laid down under section 13(4) only if the tribunal declares that the action taken already is in accordance with the provisions of the securitisation act and the rules made thereunder. use of the word if does not connote a condition precedent. it is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they harmonized with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the legislature. the provisions of section 17 must, therefore, receive such construction at the hands of the court as would advance the object and at any event not thwart it. in other words, the principle of purposive interpretation should be applied while construing the said provisions. the securitisation act is enacted to provide a speedy and summary remedy for recovery of thousands of crores which were due to the banks and financial institutions. 1. the case in kara nayar v. ramappa 17 m.p 267 merely decided that a request for return (of those title-deeds which the mortgagee was bound to return before he takes out the money from court) accompanying a tender made under section 83 of act iv of 1882, was not a condition vitiating the tender.2. in the present case, the appellant insisted on a return of certain title-deeds which he was not entitled to a return of, as a condition of the tender and 'refused to pay the money until he had recovered the documents and possession of the property' (paragraph 3 of the district judge's judgment). section 55 of the transfer of property act does not apply, as rightly decided by the district judge.3. i dismiss the second appeal.