STANDARD MED AND PHARMA Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK
LAWS(DR)-2004-3-5
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 11,2004

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A. Subbulakshmy, (J.) Chairperson - (1.) THE appeal is directed as against the order passed in IA-842/2003 in OA-44712000. THE applicant-Bank filed that IA seeking direction to be issued to the respondent for payment of the admitted amount. THE PO, DRT, passed Order directing the respondent to pay the OA claim amount since the PO, DRT, has found that the defendant has categorically admitted the OA claim.
(2.) On a perusal of the reply statement filed by the defendant it is seen that the defendant has admitted the liability only to the extent of Rs. 45.94 lakhs. It is also stated in that Reply statement that the defendant also has submitted a proposal for compromise to the applicant-Bank. It is nowhere stated in the Reply statement that the defendant has admitted the entire Suit claim amount. The defendant has categorically stated in para 6 of the Additional written statement that thereafter the defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 196.06 lakhs which has to be deducted from the outstanding amount of Rs. 242 lakhs and if the paid amount is deducted the balance left to be paid by the defendant is only an amount of Rs. 45.94 lakhs and thus the defendant has to pay the said amount of Rs. 45.94 lakhs only but not any more much less the claim made by the applicant. So, it is crystal clear that the admitted liability by the defendant is only to the extent of Rs. 45.94 lakhs. Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that as per the Annexure submitted by the defendant, he is liable to pay the entire amount. Even in Annexure-II, the appellant has stated that the total due is Rs. 242 lakhs but he has made payment subsequent to 31.3.1992 and the balance outstanding is Rs. 45.94 lakhs. Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the appellant has not redeemed the debentures and he is liable to pay the entire amount. That has to be decided only on merit by letting in proper evidence before the Tribunal. With regard to the merits of the case that cannot be decided now in this appeal since the Order itself has been passed only in IA, which is filed or payment of the admitted amount. Payment of the admitted amount falls under Rule 12(5) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. So, the Order is passed only under Rule 12(5) of the Act with regard to the payment of the admitted amount. But the PO, DRT has ordered for payment of the entire OA claim since the PO has found that the defendant has admitted the entire claim amount. But, from the Reply statement it is not clear that the appellant has admitted the entire claim amount. With regard to the entire claim amount that has to be decided only on merit in the main matter by letting in proper evidence by both sides.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent-Bank submits that the appellant has to pay the amount under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act before the appeal is taken on file, the appellant has not complied with the provision under Section 21 and the appeal is not maintainable. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Chhotelal v. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, AIR 1971 SC 2280, wherein the Apex Court has held that "under the Customs Act, 1962, under Section 129 the appellate authority can dismiss appeal if Sub-section (1) or order passed under the Proviso is not complied with by the appellant, Sub-section (1) of Section 129 makes it obligatory on appellant to deposit duty or penalty pending the appeal or to comply with the order passed under the proviso and on failure of the appellant to comply with either requirement the Appellate Authority is competent to dismiss appeal though dismissal is not expressly provided for in Section 129".;


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