A VIVEKANANDAM Vs. BANK OF MADURA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the common order dated 26-6-2001 made in I.A. No. 492/2001 and I.A. Nos. 2135 and 2136 of 2000 in T.A. No. 1665 of 1997 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai-second defendant-A. Vivekanandam has filed the above Revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) BANK of Madura Limited-first respondent herein initially filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S. No. 321 of 95 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem against the defendants/petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein. After the constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai, the said suit has been transferred to that Tribunal where it was renumbered as T.A. No. 1665 of 1997. By order dated 30-11-99, the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an order declaring that the applicant BANK is entitled to a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 10,45,643-35 with future interest at 12 per cent per annum simple interest from the date of plaint till date of realisation with costs. Against the said order, respondents 2 and 3 herein/defendants 1 and 3 filed I.A. No. 2135 of 2000 to condone delay in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 30-11-99 and I.A. No. 2136 of 2000 to set aside the ex parte order passed in T.A. No. 1665 of 97 dated 30-11-99. The said applications were resisted by the BANK of Madura by filing a counter statement. By a common order dated 26-6-2001, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after careful perusal of the earlier order dated 30-11-99, came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the Tribunal (Debts Recovery Tribunal) has given a decision on merits after considering the facts and documents, their remedy is to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, and rejected both the applications being devoid of merits. However, in order to render substantial justice and to give opportunity to the defendants to contest the suit on merits, the Tribunal directed the defendants to pay 50 per cent of the decretal amount within one month. The Tribunal has also made it clear therein that on furnishing a proof of the said payment, they shall be at liberty to file their reply statement and shall be permitted to contest the case on merits. The Tribunal further ordered that in such a situation, their I.A. is deemed to be allowed, and in case they fail to make payment within the stipulated period to the applicant bank, their I.A. shall stand dismissed after the stipulated period. Against the said order, the second defendant alone has filed the present Revisions before this Court.

(3.) IN INdustrial Credit and INvestment Corporation of INdia Ltd. v. Grapco INdustrial Ltd. , reported in 1999 (II) CTC 460, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the High Court can interfere with interim orders of courts and Tribunals while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution if the order is made without jurisdiction. However, the order under challenge is not an interim order, nor the Debts Recovery tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass such order. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Pattammal, M. alias Murugayee v. R. Velan Jagannathan , reported in 1988 2 L.W. 509. The said decision is cited to the effect that the Tribunal is not justified in passing an ex parte order. We are not concerned with the merits of the order under challenge. It is open to the petitioner to rely upon this decision either before the Tribunal or before the Appellate Tribunal to support his case.