Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 661 (KAR)

E. Lakshmi v. Corporation Bank

2018-06-05

DINESH MAHESHWARI, KRISHNA S.DIXIT

body2018
ORDER : 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to entertain these petitions. 2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners-appellants in AIR (SA) No.153/18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, seek to question the order dated 08.05.2018 passed in the said appeal requiring them to make a pre-deposit of Rs.45 lakhs for maintaining the appeal against the order dated 07.03.2018 as passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru rejecting S.A.No.362/2017. 3. The Appellate Tribunal after noticing that the demand notice in question was for an amount of Rs.1.45 crores, has issued the directions aforesaid for maintaining the appeal before it. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to argue that the petitioners have a strong prima facie case in their favour and they have already filed a suit for partition with respect to the property in question which is sought to be dealt with by the respondent-Bank for recovery of alleged arrears. It is submitted that the release deed relied upon in the matter was a made-up and created document and on that basis, the rights of the petitioners are not lost. 5. The learned counsel has also attempted to argue that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may entertain this writ petition directly against the order dated 07.03.2018 as passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. The submissions remain bereft of substance and cannot be accepted. 6. The statutory remedy of appeal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is specifically conditioned by the requirement of making pre-deposit. The submissions remain bereft of substance and cannot be accepted. 6. The statutory remedy of appeal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is specifically conditioned by the requirement of making pre-deposit. Section 21 thereof reads as under: “Section 21: Deposit of amount of debt due, on filing appeal: Where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of financial debt is due to a bank or a financial institution or a consortium of banks of financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debt so due from him as determined by the Tribunal under section 19: PROVIDED that the Appellate Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to be deposited by such amount which shall not be less than twenty-five per cent of the amount of such debt so due to be deposited under this section”. 7. In the face of the provision aforesaid, the Appellate Tribunal cannot be faulted in enforcing the requirement of pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal. For availability of the statutory remedy of appeal and looking to the nature of proceedings, we find absolutely no reason that the writ petition be directly entertained as against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. For what has been observed, these writ petitions fail and stands rejected.