MALINI SRINIVASAN Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE W. P. No. 22120 of 2008 has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the interim order of the debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 01. 08. 2008, passed in I. A. No. 754 of 2007 in U. R. A. No. 30 of 2007, W. P. No. 25047 of 2008 is to quash the final order of the said Tribunal, dated 25. 09. 2008, passed in u. R. A. No. 30 of 2007.

(2.) FIRST respondent bank (in short, "the bank") sanctioned certain loan facilities to m/s. Concise Technologies Pvt. Limited, based upon the security given by a partnership firm, namely, M/s. Venyl General Industries, in which the writ petitioner was one of the partners. Since the said loan was not paid by Concise Technologies Pvt. Ltd. , the bank filed a suit on the file of this High Court vide C. S. No. 33 of 1996, against the writ petitioner and ten others, claiming a sum of rs. 43,42,180/ -. Subsequent to the constitution of the Tribunals, the suit was transferred to debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, and renumbered as T. A. No. 513 of 1997. After regular trial, the Debt Recovery tribunal (in short, "drt") decreed the suit as prayed for by the bank. Thereafter, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal vide u. R. A. No. 30 of 2007 on the file of Debt Recovery appellate Tribunal (in short, "drat'')without complying with the mandatory provision of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions act, 1993, with an interlocutory application vide I. A. No. 754 of 2007, for waiver of 75% of the debt due. The said interlocutory application was disposed of, directing the writ petitioner to deposit about 25% of the certificate amount of Rs. 43,42,180/-, rounded off to Rs. 10. 00 lakhs in two equal instalments of Rs. 5. 00 lakhs to the bank, the first of which should be payable on or before 08. 09. 2008 and the sccond one payable on or before 08. 10. 2008. However, the writ petitioner failed to comply with the said order. In view of such non-compliance, the appeal itself was dismissed by DRAT, which order is under challenge in one of these writ petitions.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor; no valid mortgage is created concerning the property in favour of the bank; the entries in the Equitable Mortgage register alone are not sufficient to give legal validity to the alleged claim of the bank of an existence of an equitable mortgage; an unregistered mortgage deed cannot be called in evidence; the dates in the Equitable Mortgage Register have been mala fidely altered by the bank and they are incompatible; the petitioner is not an earning member and, therefore, she is not in a position to deposit the amount, as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal by DRAT.