BHAGAT RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARE the provisions of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 arbitrary and unconstitutional ? This is the short question that arises in this writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE petitioners, took a loan from the United Commercial Bank. On October 25, 1985, the Bank instituted a suit against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 to 8 for the recovery of Rs. 11,97,144.20. On July 2, 1998, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur decreed the suit and held that the Bank was entitled to recovery Rs. 11,51,763/-. The claim for interest and costs was also upheld. The petitioners allege that along with respondent Nos. 5 to 8, they preferred an appeal before the appellate Tribunal. Vide order dated September 15, 1998, they were directed to deposit Rs. 4 lacs in two instalments of Rs. 2 lacs each "on or before 1.11.1998 and 1.12.1998 respectively". This order was passed under Section 21 of the Act. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P-1, with the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

(3.) MR . Achint, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the provisions of the Act have already been declared to be unconstitutional by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court Bar Association and another v. Union of India, 1995 Delhi Law Times 815. On this basis, it was contended that the provisions of Section 21 are unconstitutional. Thus, the order directing payment of Rs. 4 lacs deserves to be quashed. Is it so ?