(1.) Challenge is to the orders, dated 18 -12 -2008, 30 -12 -2008, 18 -12 -2008 and 19 -11 -2008 in I.A. No. 1167 of 2008 in O.A. No. 230 of 2006; I.A. No. 1494 of 2008 in O.A. No. 166 of 2002; I.A. No. 1169 of 2008 in O.A. No. 231 of 2006; I.A. No. 1173 of 2008 in O.A. No. 239 of 2006 and I.A. No. 1257 of 2008 in O.A. No. 105 of 2005, respectively, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad by way of Writ of Certiorari so far as imposition of costs of Rs.10,000/ - (Rupees ten thousand) payable to the Prime Ministers Relief Fund is concerned.
(2.) According to the petitioner - State Bank of Hyderabad, Vizianagaram, Shapurnagar and Bhongir Branches, respectively, respective respondents - borrowers obtained loan facility from their respective branches by executing necessary loan documents, besides guarantors executing agreements of guarantee creating security interest in the respective properties for the loan amounts. Since the loans stood un -discharged, the petitioner filed O.A. Nos.230 of 2006 (old No. 109 of 2005), 166 of 2002, 231 of 2006, 239 of 2006 and 105 of 2005 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal) for recovery of Rs.32,30,895.65ps; Rs.20,04,665/ -; 10,05,282/ -; 11,91,702.69ps. and Rs.38,91,031/ -, respectively. During inquiry, the respondents - borrowers/guarantors, remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
(3.) It is further stated that the petitioner examined its Branch Officer as AW.1 and marked the documents. At the stage of arguments, it was found that the statement of account originally filed was in accordance with unamended provisions of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act 1891 (for short the Act) and, as per subsequent amendments to the Act, additional format was required to be certified by the person in -charge of the Computer System of the bank certifying that the system was operated properly at the relevant point of time when print out was taken.