M/S Mule Brothers And Ors vs The State Bank Of India Through Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 650 Bom

                                                         Writ Petition No.2461/2010
                                            1




                                                                          
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                            WRIT PETITION NO.2461 OF 2010




                                                 
     1)       M/s Mule Brothers at Jawali,
              Post Lamjana, Tq. Ausa,




                                         
              District Latur, through its Proprietor
              Trimbak Narisng Mule,
                             
              Age 48 years, Occ. Agri.,
              R/o Jawali, Post Lamjana,
              Tq. Ausa, District Latur.
                            
     2)       Smt. Sudhamati Prabhakar Mule,
              Age 45 years, Occ. Household,
              R/o Beside Lifestyle Building,
              Near Rajiv Gandhi Chowk,
      


              Ausa Road, Latur.
   



     3)       Hanmant Raoji Jirmire,
              Age 55 years, Occ. Business,
              R/o Jawali, Post Lamjana,
              Tq. Ausa, District Latur.            ...      PETITIONERS





              VERSUS


     The State Bank of India





     through its Branch Manager,
     At Killari, Taluka Ausa,
     District Latur                                ...      RESPONDENT


                                     .....
     Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate for petitioners
     Shri P.B. Paithankar, Advocate for respondent
                                     .....




    ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:14:44 :::
                                                               Writ Petition No.2461/2010
                                                2




                                                                                
                                       CORAM:       S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                                    A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATED: 16th March, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.):

1. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners states

that, the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Debts

Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the judgment and order

passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal,

vide order dated 8.12.2009, had directed the present petitioners

to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- within six weeks. The

petitioners could not deposit the said amount within the

stipulated period, however, subsequently, the petitioners had

filed an application along with the Demand Draft of

Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioners sought extension of time to

deposit the said amount. The Court rejected the said application.

The learned counsel submits that, it was because of the financial

constraints, the amount could not be deposited within the

stipulated period. According to the learned counsel, the

petitioners be given an opportunity to deposit the said amount

and contest the appeal on merits. Because of the non deposit of

the amount, the appeal itself was dismissed by the Debts

Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

Writ Petition No.2461/2010

2. Mr. Paithankar, the learned counsel for respondent

submits that, the petitioners were directed to deposit only

Rs.10,00,000/-. As per the judgment of the Debts Recovery

Tribunal, the dues against the present petitioners at the relevant

time was Rs.25,57,631/- in 2006. As on the date of the order,

the same was more than Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/-. As

such, the petitioners were directed to deposit less than 25% of

the amount. The learned counsel further submits that, this Court

had directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- vide order

dated 11.4.2012. Even the petitioners have not deposited the

said amount. This shows that the contention of the petitioners

is not bonafide.

3. We have considered the submissions canvassed by

the learned counsel for the parties.

4. As per Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to

Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the petitioners have

to deposit 75% of the amount. The Appellate Tribunal exercised

discretion and directed the petitioners to deposit only

Rs.10,00,000/-. The said amount is also not deposited within the

period stipulated. Six years have lapsed from the date of the

Writ Petition No.2461/2010

impugned order.

5. No doubt, appeal is a substantial right. However, the

same is circumscribed by the conditions laid down in the

provisions itself. The amount outstanding must have bulged by

now because interest is mounting.

6.

It does not appear that the petitioners have paid any

amount to the respondent Bank after filing of the appeal.

7. We would exercise our discretion and allow the

petitioners to contest the appeal on merits. However, the

petitioners are required to deposit the additional amount. We

are exercising our discretion in favour of the petitioners

considering the fact that after the time stipulated by the

Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners had approached the Appellate

Tribunal with a demand draft of Rs.10,00,000/-.

8. In light of the above, we pass the following order :

9. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The

Appeal No.75/2009 filed by the petitioners shall be restored to its

original position subject to following conditions :-

Writ Petition No.2461/2010

(i) The petitioners shall deposit an amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs) with the

respondent Bank within four weeks from today. If

the amount as directed is deposited with the

respondent Bank, then the Appellate Tribunal shall

hear the appeal of the petitioners on its own merits.

(ii) In case the petitioners fail to deposit the amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs) with the

respondent Bank within four weeks, then the appeal

filed by the petitioners before the Appellate Tribunal

shall stand dismissed.

10. Rule accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)