AJAY KUMAR TODY Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER assails the order dated 13. 7. 2001 (P/8) passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal on ground of non-compliance of the order dated 24. 10. 2000. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal had directed vide order dated 24. 12. 2000 to deposit a sum of Rs. 16 lacs within a period of 12 weeks; this order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai was challenged in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in W. P. No. 268/2001 which was decided by a Division Bench of Mumbai High Court on 23rd January, 2001 as per Annexure P/4. The Mumbai High Court passed the order to the following effect :

(2.) IT appears that Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur has passed the judgment on 9. 5. 2000 (Annexure P/1) directing payment of Rs. 32,75,502/- along with interest. Recovery was ordered to be made from the mortgaged property. Against this an appeal was preferred before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai which vide order dated 24. 12. 2000 (Annexure P/2) directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 16 lacs within a period of 12 weeks. Deposit was directed in view of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It appears that when the matter was pending before the High Court of Mumbai, a document Annexure P/3 signed by learned Counsel for respondents and the petitioners was filed before the High Court of Mumbai which reads as under : MINUTES

(3.) HIGH Court of Mumbai took the note of the Minutes filed before the Court and passed the order on 23rd January, 2001 quoted above. Time was extended to deposit the amount of Rs. 16 lacs from 12 weeks to 20 weeks. To that extent the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal was modified. It appears that petitioner did not make the deposit in the extended time which was granted by the High Court of Mumbai; hence an order was passed on 13th July, 2001 by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal. The stand of the respondents is that Bank is not ready to go by the Minutes filed before the High Court of Mumbai and adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to make the deposit, the petitioner did not comply with the directions of the High Court of Mumbai as such the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is fully justified.