RAMA KANT UPMANYU Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal under Section 20 of the Act. Registrar reported that appeal is defective as compliance of Rule 9 read with Section 21 of the Act has not been made. Learned Counsel for the appellant objected against this report and submitted that main relief of the appellant is to set aside the order dated 20.3.2002 by which the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. was rejected by the Presiding Officer of D.R.T. He further submitted that if the application for recall is allowed then the ex parte order dated 25.4.2000 will automatically be set aside. THErefore, appeal is virtually against the order dated 20.3.2000. On 6.6.20021 held that compliance of Rule 9 read with Section 21 of the Act has not to be made under the facts and circumstances of the case. On 10th July, 2002 appeal was admitted after hearing the learned Counsel for the Bank also as delay was already condoned on 12.6.2002.

(2.) On 13th August, 2002 learned Counsel for the appellant prayed for stay for recovery proceeding and objection was filed on behalf of the Bank by Mr. R.L. Arora, Advocate that the appellant has prayed for two reliefs which is barred under Rule 1994 and as appellant has challenged final order also, therefore, this appeal cannot be entertained unless the compliance of Section 21 read with Rule 9 of Rule 1994 has been made. He further submitted that though the appeal has been admitted but in view of the objection filed by him, the order of admission dated 10th July, 2002 may be modified.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the parties were heard on this point at length. Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate submitted that after deletion of second relief the appellant has only challenged the order passed by Tribunal rejecting his application under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. through which no amount of debt due has been determined, therefore, compliance of Section 21 is not to be made in this appeal. He submitted that this question arose in a writ petition filed by Gemini Arts (P) Ltd. v. Indian Bank, and the Hon'ble High Court, Madras took the view that the requirement to deposit "determined" amount while filing the appeal could arise only in appeal against the final orders and not in other appeals against order under Section 19(6) of the Act. Mr. Murari submitted that this judgment throws light on this subject. He further cited a decision of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Anil Kumar Somani and Ors. v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Jaipur, in which it was held that once the discretion vested with the Tribunal was exercised at the time of entertaining the appeal and appeal was admitted without deposit of 75% in that case compliance of Section 21 of the Act did not arise and the appeal cannot be disposed of in limine in Section 21 of the Act.