(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent viz. , the Chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in regard to the order dated 10. 05. 2007 passed in M. A. No. 205 of 2006 and M. A. No. 206 of 2006 and quash the same and consequently, not to confirm the auction held on 11. 10. 2006 in DRT. No. 103 of 1999 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I in respect of the schedule mentioned property.
(2.) THE writ petitioners are the defendants in O. A. No. 1774 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The first respondent Bank has filed O. A. No. 1774 of 1998 against the writ petitioners/defendants for recovering a sum of Rs. 20,71,776/- with interest at 19. 89% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation with costs and for sale of the plaint schedule property. The writ petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 were set exparte and an order was passed on 08. 04. 1999 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai declaring that the first respondent Bank is entitled to the Recovery Certificate against the writ petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 for a sum of Rs. 20,71,776/- till date of application and with 12% simple interest from the date of application till the date of realisation with costs which includes the advocate fees and a Recovery Certificate was ordered to be issued thereto, with a direction to communicate the copy of the order to all the parties.
(3.) IN M. A. Nos. 205 and 206 of 2006 filed by the writ petitioners/appellants, a common order was passed on 10. 05. 2007 by the second respondent viz. , the Chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissing both the appeals. As a matter of fact, M. A. Nos. 205 and 206 of 2006 arise out of the common orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai on 11. 10. 2006 in M. A. SR. Nos. 1274 and 1277 of 2006 to condone the delay of 1006 days in filing these applications to restore M. A. Nos. 338 and 339 of 2002. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai has dismissed M. A. SR. Nos. 1274 and 1277 of 2006 on 11. 10. 2006 without costs finding that the writ petitioners/petitioners defendants have not properly explained the delay of 1006 days.