K R SUBBIAH Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners / defendants in D.R.C.No.43 of 2001 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, have preferred the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to quash the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Officer, Coimbatore.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows:- The first petitioner was working as a Manager of Manimelkudi Branch in the respondent Bank. He caused loss to the bank of Rs.11 lakhs due to his conduct in 1983-84. Enquiry was conducted and he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.11,95,200/= by selling his properties on 21.06.1984. He also executed a demand promissory note for the aforesaid amount on 16.10.1984. The respondent bank filed O.S.No.585 of 1985 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Madurai and a preliminary decree was passed on 07.01.1986. Final decree was also passed on 12.11.1986. Two properties belonging to the 1st petitioner was sold and the bank collected a sum of Rs.4,07,000/=. After formation of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, under section 19(7) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1993), the proceedings were transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. O.A.No.1803 of 1998 was also ordered ex parte on 26.04.2000. An attachment order was passed on 09.08.2002. Debt Recovery Certificate was also issued on 16.08.2002. The order of proclamation of sale was passed in R.P.No.85 of 2002 on 11.10.2002. The date for auction was also fixed by the Debt Recovery Officer on 15.11.2002. Aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the revision petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Bank contended that the present revision petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable under law. There is an alternative remedy available to the revision petitioners under section 20 of the Act,1993. They have not preferred any appeal aggrieved against the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Officer. The stand now taken by the revision petitioners cannot be entertained. They have neither appeared at any point of time and contested the suit before the Civil Court or before the Tribunal. Only when the properties were proclaimed for sale, now a stand has been taken by the revision petitioners questioning the debt itself and also a new plea has been taken that the claim is also barred by limitation. Even assuming that the rate of interest is not mentioned in the final decree passed by the Civil Court, by virtue of Order 34 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, the Bank is entitled to claim the same interest and accordingly the rate of interest has been calculated and the amount is due and payable by the revision petitioners.