ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Under challenge in this petition purporting to be both under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 18-2-2015 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Delhi (hereinafter the DRAT') in an appeal against the dismissal by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the DRT') of an application under Section 26(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1993') filed by the respondent Bank. Also under challenge is the consequential order dated 30-3-2015 passed by the DRT Jaipur amending the recovery certificate dated 12-8-2004 in OA No.3/2002 entitling the respondent Bank for recovery of Rs.25,84,248/- against the defendants petitioners in OA No.3/2004 jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of the filing of the OA under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 till the realization of the amounts, as also the cost of litigation. Aside of the aforesaid challenge as reflected in the caption of the writ petition, in the prayer clause, a challenge has also been laid to the recovery certificate dated 12-8-2004 issued by the DRT in OA No.3/2004 and the affirming order dated 5-4-2011 passed by the DRAT in Appeal No.103/2008. A further consequential direction sought is that OA No.3/2002 filed by the respondent bank against the petitioner firm its proprietor and guarantors be dismissed with costs.
(2.) However, in the course of argument, Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Advocate has confined his arguments only to the order dated 18-2-2015 passed by the DRAT and the consequential order dated 30-3-2015 passed by the DRT amending the certificate of recovery dated 12-8-2004 making the petitioner firm, its proprietor and guarantors liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.25,84,248/- from the date of filing of original application till the date of realization.
(3.) The relevant facts are that an application under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 was filed by the respondent Bank against the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3, on or about 24-11-2001 for recovery of the outstanding amount Rs.25,84,248/- along with contracted interest from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization. Reply of complete denial was filed by the petitioners including of the claim of creation of mortgage asserted by the respondent Bank as collateral security for the loan advanced. On consideration of the evidence in the case, the DRT vide order dated 12-8-2004 issued a recovery certificate against the defendants holding them liable to pay the amount of Rs.25,84,248/- claimed by the respondent Bank. Issue No.3 before the DRT related to relief to which the respondent Bank was entitled to. Thereon the DRT inter alia held that:- "From the above discussion applicant Bank is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.25,84,248/- from the defendants Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally with interest and cost. Applicant bank is also entitled to realize aforesaid amount with interest and cost from the sale of hypothecated goods and mortgaged property of the defendants. As regard rate of interest from the date of filing this original application till realization in my view considering the discretion of this Tribunal and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2001 page 3095, Central bank of India v. Ravindra Kumar , interest at the rate of 10% per annum will be sufficient on the amount of Rs.25,84,248/- from the date of filing this original application till realization.";