SEETHA INDUSTRIES Vs. CHAIRPERSON DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ( Writ Petition filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings I.N. No.154/2004 (an order passed in IN No.67/2004) passed by DRAT, Chennai (in I.A. No.418/2003) in T.A. No.1603/1997 and quash the order dated 24.6.04 as stated therein.) This writ petition has been preferred by the borrower, Seetha Industries, against order dated 24th June, 2004, passed by the 1st respondent, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT') in T.A. No.1603/97. By impugned order, DRAT refused to recall its earlier order dated 19th June, 2004, and, thereby, refused to review the earlier order.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is that the borrower obtained medium term loan of Rs.2.70 lakhs and a working capital loan of Rs.7.50 lakhs from the respondent, State Bank of India, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') on 2nd Jan., 1984.. On the ground of default in payment and drawal of amount exceeding the limit, the bank initially stopped the transaction and later on, instituted suit in O.S. No.135/87 on the file of Sub Court, Villupuram, on 31st July, 1987, claiming a sum of Rs.13,83,362.45 against the borrower-petitioner as well as the guarantor. THE suit was decreed on 3rd July, 1991 setting the borrower and guarantors exparte. THE borrower-petitioner had filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree in I.A. No.808/91 wherein conditional order was passed on 18th Aug., 1991 directing the borrower to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh on or before 18th Sept., 1991, but the borrower having failed to pay the amount, the preliminary decree dated 3rd July, 1991, became final.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the suit should be stayed as it is to prefer a counter claim. In fact, an original application has been filed in 2003, but it has not been registered for non-payment of requisite court fee. On the other hand, according to counsel for the bank, inspite of decree passed against the petitioner in 1991, for more than 16 years he is simply dragging the matter delaying the execution of the decree.