Decided on July 04,2003



K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)THE Ist respondent-THE Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed Civil Suit O.S. 160/90 before the Civil Court at Kota (Rajasthan) against appellants 1 to 9 (who were defendants 1 to 9, and hereinafter referred to as appellants/defendants), and the 2nd respondent in the appeal (as 10th defendant) for the recovery of Rs. 73,62,654.15 with future interest. After the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force, the said Suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') and was taken on file as O.A. 198/96. THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 10.10.2001, directing the issue of Recovery Certificate for recovery of Rs. 73,62,654/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of Suit till realisation payable by defendants 1 to 9 jointly and severally. He further directed issue of the Recovery Certificate for Rs. 3,16,393.45 with interest @ 10% per annum against the 10th defendant out of the abovesaid sum of Rs. 73,62,654/-, and that if the 10th defendant does not pay the amount, the respondent-Bank will be entitled to recover the entire amount from defendants 1 to 9.
(2.)Aggrieved, the appellants/defendants have preferred the appeal against the same, and have also filed this application under Section 21 of the Act for waiver of the pre-deposit. The appellants have urged, among other things, that due to the various acts of commissions and omissions on the part of the Bank, detrimental to the appellants/defendants, the appellants/defendants have been financially ruined, with the result that the appellants/ defendants do not have any financial strength to fall back on for deposit of the amount as per Section 21 of the Act. The appellants/defendants have also urged that the various aspects of law raised by them including the plea regarding limitation, and the concept of indemnity and guarantee have not been discussed by the DRT in the final order. The appellants/ defendants have also urged that their right to file the appeal cannot be altered/controlled by the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.
The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this application, for which appellants/defendants have filed a rejoinder.

(3.)I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.