Alok Kumar Basu, J. - (1.) What should be the proper and correct interpretation of Section 21 under Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and whether the Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta under the said Act exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the petitioners to deposit 50% of the decretal sum as a condition precedent to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Calcutta dated 12th December, 2001 and for passing an order of status quo as on date, these two inter-related questions have been raised in the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution while challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 8th March, 2002 passed in M. Case No. DRAT/CAL/1/2002.
(2.) A brief statement of facts, as available from the application itself and also from the submissions of the respective parties, is given below, which would be, perhaps, of some help and assistance to appreciate the rival contentions and also to resolve the issues involved in the revisional application.
(3.) Respondent No. 1, Allahabad Bank filed Suit No. 1839 of 1969 for ; realisation of a sum of Rs. 16,63,131/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Sixty three Thousand One Hundred and Thirty one) against one Mongal Prasad Jayswal and Rukmini Sewak Jayswal as defendants in the High Court at Calcutta and during pendency of that suit and on the death of both the original defendants, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and the petitioners were substituted in place of said Mongal Prasad Jayswal and Rukmini Sewak Jayswal respectively.;