- (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the DRAT") dated 25.09.2014 in I.A No. 675/2014 refusing to grant stay on the order dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The effect of which is that the petitioner is required to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the first respondent to sixth respondent (hereafter called "the borrowers").
(2.) THE borrowers have availed credit facilities from the seventh respondent, HDFC Bank Ltd. (hereinafter called "the Bank"). This was for the purposes of business. In the course of its commercial activities, the borrowers incurred losses and they sought indemnification from the petitioner, the insurer. The petitioner rejected the claim; this led to initiation of proceedings by the borrowers before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Those proceedings are pending. In the meanwhile, the Bank proceeded to initiate proceedings for recovery of the amounts due to it by filing an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the RDDBFI Act") before the DRT. Concededly, those proceedings, being OA No. 35/10 are pending. Earlier, the Bank had also initiated proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI"). The borrowers approached the DRT under Section 17 of SARFAESI by filing SA No. 300/2009. In those proceedings, the borrower impleaded the insurer too as a party -respondent. The DRT by its order dated 29.08.2014, directed the insurer to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the borrowers, as a pre -condition for contesting the proceedings. Interestingly, the borrower impleaded the insurer even though the seventh respondent -Bank had no claim against the insurer. The insurer made an application claiming that it was neither a necessary nor a proper party and sought deletion in an application that has not yet been dealt with and disposed of. That application for deletion is pending. The insurer felt aggrieved and approached the DRAT urging that the direction to deposit 50% of the amount was not sustainable. The DRAT has by the impugned order rejected that application.
(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties. Ld. Counsel for the Bank submitted, at the outset, that since there was no stay of proceedings, the DRAT has, in fact, by its order dated 02.02.2015 dismissed the insurer's appeal itself. The copy of the said order was produced and is extracted below: - "DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI I.A. No. 675/2014 Inward No. 512/2014 In S.A. No. 300/2009 (Delhi -III) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vishal Kumar Grover and Ors. 02.02.2015 Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh Present: Mr. Amilok Shori representing Mr. Amit Tyagi, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sheshank Shekhar, counsel for the respondents. On 15th December, 2014 the counsel for the appellant had placed before me order passed by the Division Bench staying direction issued by the Tribunal below to deposit 50% of the insurance amount till the next date of hearing i.e. 10th December, 2014. This order was taken on record. While on one hand the appellant has approached the High Court against the impugned order and on the other has filed the present appeal. I am of the view that the appellant cannot be permitted to avail two separate remedies to impugn the same order. The appellant will have to either pursue its remedy before the High Court or before this Tribunal. It is expected from the appellants that it has disclosed in the Writ Petition that he has an alternative remedy of appeal which it has invoked. Since the Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been entertained, it would not be legally appropriated to permit the appellant to pursue its present appeal. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable as the appellant has filed a Writ Petition to impugn the same order. Sd/ - CHAIRMAN" Counsel for the insurer submits that regardless of the outcome of this order, this court should intervene in the matter since the impugned order is unsustainable on every count. It was urged that in the absence of any determined liability on the insurer's part, the DRT's direction is not based on any principle. Counsel for the borrowers urged that the insurer illegally withheld the amounts due by rejecting the valid claims made on account of the law.;