SATINDER KAPUR Vs. PNB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.07.2007 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in an appeal from an order dated 11.05.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The question to be considered in this writ petition is whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal can refuse to grant permission to the applicant/Bank to withdraw a pending application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) when both the Bank and the debtor have entered into an out of court settlement?

(2.) THE question arises in the backdrop of an application which was filed by the Bank for withdrawal of the original application No. 110/1996. In the said application, it was clearly stated that during the pendency of the said original application No. 110/1996, the defendants therein and the petitioner herein had approached the Bank for a compromise. The compromise proposal was duly accepted by the Bank and in terms of the same, the petitioner herein deposited a sum of Rs. 125 lakhs along with interest of approximately Rs. 13.71 lakhs with the Bank. The said amount was accepted by the Bank as full and final settlement of the dues. Consequently, it was stated in the application that the Bank, having received the total amount of Rs. . 1,38,71,661/ - inclusive of delayed period interest from the debtors, had issued a No Dues Certificate. in favour of the latter. It was then contended in the application that in the light of these events, the Bank wished to withdraw the original application No. 110/1996. However, in the prayer, the Bank did mention that the application be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the compromise. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondent/Bank submit in unison that the words in terms of the compromise ought to be disregarded inasmuch as neither party sought a compromise decree from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. And, all that the respondent/Bank was seeking, was permission to withdraw the original application in view of the settlement which had already been arrived at between the parties.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order dated 11.05.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 184/2009 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal also did not agree with the viewpoint of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 11.05.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is as under: