NEERAJ KUMAR VAIDYA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Debts Recovery Tribunal-­I, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT'), allowed the Application (O.A. No. 2882 of 2017) filed by the Bank-­respondents No. 1 and 2 herein declaring defendants No. 1 to 6 therein liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 5,49,96,642/-­ (Rupees Five crore forty nine lakh ninety six thousand six hundred forty two only) with interest, against which the petitioner (who was defendant No. 6 before the DRT) preferred Appeal No. 332 of 2019 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT') seeking exemption from depositing the amount in terms of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that seeking the exemption from depositing the amount required to be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, as prescribed under Section 21 of the Act, the petitioner made an Application before the DRAT on 8 th June, 2019, but, the said Application has not been considered by the DRAT. It is his further contention that on 26th August, 2019, when the case was called, a submission to the effect that the pre-­ deposit in accordance with law will be made within four weeks, was made by the proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-­petitioner herein without referring to the Application filed on 8th June, 2019 seeking exemption from pre-­deposit of the amount, as provided under Section 21 of the Act.

(3.) A prayer, therefore, has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant to waive the amount required to be deposited in terms of Section 21 of the Act. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor, however, he has been plotted by arraying as defendant No. 6 in the Application filed before DRT and that, though he has taken a specific ground that defendant No. 6 (petitioner herein) is not liable to pay any amount, the DRT has passed the order directing defendants No. 1 to 6 to make the payment. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that four weeks' time to make the payment of pre-­ deposit, as has been recorded in order dated 26th August, 2019 passed by DRAT, is also over and the application filed on 8th June, 2019, itself has vanished.