INDIAN BANK Vs. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal question that is required to be answered by us in these matters is 'could there be any complete waiver of deposit amount to be made by the borrower/guarantor while preferring an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as contemplated under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security,Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI' Act) and whether credit could be given to the borrower / guarantor. as against the amount deposited/paid by the auction purchaser towards the sale price?'

(2.) THE writ petitioner/Bank is the creditor; the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition are the guarantors and the 5th respondent in the writ petition who is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is the auction purchaser. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parlies are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.

(3.) AS against the said order dated 13-12- 2006 made in S.A. No. 23 of 2006, the Respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal before the second respondent/appellate Tribunal and in R.M.A. No. 5 of 2007, the second respondent passed an interim order dated 1-2-2007, directing the second respondent to deposit Rs. 6.50 crores in three instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 2.10 crores had to be deposited on or before 28-2-2007, the second instalment of Rs. 2.20 crores on or before 28-3-2007 and the third instalment of Rs. 2.20 crores to be deposited on or before 28- 4-2007 and the matter was directed to be listed on 1-3-2007 to monitor the compliance of the first instalment of the deposit. Since the said order was not complied with, the appeal was dismissed for default and also for non-compliance of the order on 1-3-2007. On 24-5-2007, the respondents 3 and 4 filed an application in I.N. 505 of 2007 in R.M.A. No. 5 of 2007 praying id restore the appeal and by an order dated 24-5-2007, the second respondent dismissed the said application. AS against the said order dated 24-5-2007 passed by the second respondent, the respondents 3 and 4 filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2583 of 2007 before this Court and by an order dated 7-9-2007. this Court has permitted the Respondents 3 and 4 to withdraw the appeal in R.M.A. No. 5 of 2007, as a result of which the second respondent permitted the Respondents 3 and 4 to withdraw their appeal by order dated 20-12-2007. Thereafter, the Respondents 3 and 4 filed Review Application No. 1 of 2008 in S.A. No. 23 of 2006, praying to review the order dated 13-12-2006 passed in S.A. No. 23 of 2006, which was dismissed by the DRT-III, in-charge of DRT- II on 26-2-2009. This order was challenged by the Respondents 3 and 4 before this Court by filing W.P. No. 4686 of 2009 and this Court had dismissed the same by the order dated 26-3-2009. Parallel to the above writ petition, the respondents 3-and 4 also filed an appeal in S.A. No. 95 of 2009 against the notice of intended sale dated 26-2-2009 and the DRT-I, Chennai has refused, to grant any interim order on 26-3-2009 Thereupon, the property was auctioned on 30-3-2009 and the 5th respondent emerged as successful bidder for a sum of Rs. 55.25 crores and he deposited the entire amount and the sale certificate was also issued to him on 7-5-2009. While so, as against the order dated 26-3- 2009 made in W.P. No. 4686 of 2009 and the order dated 27-3-2009 in S.A. No. 95 of 2009, the Respondents 3 and 4 filed two Special Leave Petitions in SLP Nos. 7707 and 4329 of 2009 and the Honourable Apex Court dismissed both the said petitions on 8-5-2009. Thereafter, possession was handed over to the 5th respondent by the Bank on 24-7-2009 and title deeds were also handed over to him on 25-7-2009 and the sale certificate was registered on 3-8-2009.