(1.) AS the issue involved in both the writ petitions is common, they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioners are the legal heirs of one of the partners of M/s.K.S.D. Extrusions, which availed a loan from the second respondent-State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bangalore. As the loan was not repaid in full, the second respondent-bank filed O.A.No.855 of 1999 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,11,22,208.45 together with future interest at the rate of 16.81%. By an ex parte order dated 26.12.2003, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, decreed the O.A. and a recovery certificate was also issued. THE borrowers filed an application in M.A.No.35 of 2004 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to set aside the ex parte certificate of recovery dated 26.12.2003. It appears that the said application was filed within time. Subsequent to the filing of the application, the second respondent-bank issued the following letter to the Firm, viz., M/s.K.S.D. Extrusions, on 29.11.2004:-
(3.) AN argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 04.06.2012 stating that by virtue of Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was not competent and for that matter, is not justified in imposing a condition on the petitioners, who are neither borrowers nor guarantors. In the event an appeal is filed by a person, who is neither a borrower nor a guarantor, an application under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act with regard to pre-deposit does not arise. For this submission, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in Kerala Financial Corporation and ANr. vs. Union Bank of India, reported in II (2003) BC 51 (DRAT/DRT) and the judgment of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, in Prem Prakash (Deceased) Through his Legal Heirs, Santosh and ANr. vs. United Commercial bank and Ors., reported in II (2001)BC 59 (DRAT/DRT).