- (1.) Since a pure question of law arises for consideration, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the parties without calling for a counter affidavit.
(2.) It transpires that the bank filed original application for recovery of Rs.43 Lacs before the Debts Recovery Tribunal from the petitioner, who is the borrower. Notices were issued, which were duly served and, the petitioner entered appearance by filing a vakalatnama of an Advocate, who was granted time to file written statement. It transpires that the Advocate did not appear nor filed the written statement and, accordingly, the Tribunal issued an order dated 8th November, 2012 to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a recall application under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993)for the recall of the ex parte order. The Tribunal, by an order dated 6th July, 2013 allowed the application and recalled its order dated 8th November, 2012 but, while doing so, imposed certain conditions, namely, that the petitioner would deposit 30% of the total amount claimed by the bank within 15 days in the shape of fixed deposit receipts and, only on the deposit of this amount, the petitioner would be permitted to file the written statement.
(3.) Since the conditions were not accepted by the petitioner, as being onerous, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1993, which was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal holding that the Tribunal had the power to impose such terms and conditions other than cost and that the order was in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 993, Vijay Kumar Madan and others Vs. R.N. Gupta Technical Education, 2002 AIR(SC) 2082 and Tea Auction Ltd. Vs. Grace Hill Tea Industry and another, 2006 9 Scale 223. The Appellate Tribunal held that imposition of such terms of depositing part of the proposed decreetal amount was not to penalize the petitioner but to prevent dilatory tactics. The Appellate Tribunal accordingly, rejected the appeal. A review application was filed, which was also rejected. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.;