R.M.Lodha, J. - (1.) THE judgment-debtors are in appeal, by special leave. Indian Bank-respondent (for short, `the bank') sued the appellants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,06,152.80 with interest and costs before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai. On January 7, 1986, a preliminary decree was passed by the trial court against the appellants ex-parte, as prayed for by the bank, and one month's time was given for payment. On November 12, 1986, an ex-parte final decree was passed against the appellants in terms of the preliminary decree. THE bank levied execution of the decree wherein two properties belonging to the first appellant were sold and a sum of Rs. 4,07,000/- was realized from that sale. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, `the 1993 Act') came into force and the execution proceedings were transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai (for short, `the Tribunal'). On April 26, 2000, the Tribunal issued recovery certificate in favour of the bank for a sum of Rs. 15, 66,731.49 with future interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs. 11,95,200/- from the date of decree till the date of realization with costs and for sale of the properties mentioned in the schedule. THE proceedings before the Tribunal also remained ex-parte. It appears that pursuant to the recovery certificate dated April 26, 2000, initially an order of attachment of the judgment-debtors' two properties was passed on August 9, 2002 and then the order of proclamation of sale was made on October 11, 2002. THE Debt Recovery Officer fixed November 15, 2002 as the date for auction of these two properties.
(2.) THE appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras by filing a civil revision petition challenging the debt recovery certificate, the order of proclamation of sale and the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Officer. THE High Court, however, dismissed the civil revision petition on February 3, 2003 as not maintainable as the appellants had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the 1993 Act. It may be noted here that while dismissing the civil revision petition, the High Court observed about the appellants' willingness to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the bank's claim. As regards the rate of interest, the High Court observed that the appellants may raise this aspect before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (for short, `the Appellate Tribunal'), if so advised. The appellants then preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and since it was barred by time, they also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the same. However, the Appellate Tribunal was not convinced by the explanation put forth by the appellants and dismissed the appeal on July 2, 2003 on the ground of delay. The appellants then approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal did not err in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and accordingly dismissed the revision petition on December 23, 2003. It is from this order that the present appeal has arisen.
(3.) ON May 7, 2004 before this Court an amount of Rs.16 lakhs was handed over by the appellants to the bank by way of bank drafts. The Court noticed this fact and passed the following order: "The petitioners have handed over an amount of Rs. 16 lakhs by way of bank drafts to the respondent bank. According to this Court's order dated 16.4.2004 the decretal amount was to be deposited. According to the petitioner this amount is the principal amount of Rs. 11,95, 200/- (Rupees eleven lakhs ninety five thousand and two hundred only) with 18% interest on the amount upto the date of the decree and 6% interest on the principal amount. The bank drafts are accepted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent without prejudice. The respondent is entitled to appropriate the same towards the decretal dues. The amount which has been handed over in this Court shall be adjusted first against the decretal amount and thereafter against interest. In view of the payment made, issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Himanshu Munshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks, Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. Pending disposal of the matter by this Court the attachment will continue but no further steps to be taken for sale of the petitioners property." The bank filed counter affidavit in opposition to SLP on July 23, 2004. We shall refer to the counter affidavit a little later. On November 29, 2004, leave was granted and interim order was directed to remain operative.;