IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 27339 of 2007 Between: Smt.P.Kanakadurga, W/o P.Karunakar Rao, R/o H.No.8-3-310/R/24, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, at Chennai. 2 State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry Branch, Hyderabad, rep., by its Manager, SIB. 3 M/s.Radiant Technologies Pvt.Ltd., rep., by its Managing Director having its Registered Office at 1-1-687/1/5, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad- 500 380. 4 V.Narendra Babu, S/o Ranganayakulu, R/o H.No.169, Ayodhyanagar Colony, Hyderabad. 5 R.Sudhakar, S/o late R.H.Jagdishwar Rao, R/o 8-27, Maithrinagar, Jagdyanaram, Hyderabad-500 660. 6 B.S.N.Kumar, S/o B.Venkat Rao, R/o h.No.1-10-248/1, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad. 7 T.Meenakshi, W/o T.K.Somayajulu, R/o H.No.B-177, III Avenue, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. (R-3 to R-7 are proforma parties to writ petition no relief against them). .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order dt.26th November, 2007 in R.A.NO.40 of 2007 as illegal, untenable, unwarranted and unjustified besides being onerous and consequently set aside the same and pass such other or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.K.V.SIMHADRI Counsel for the respondent No.1: NA The Court made the following : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. CH. SURYA RAO W.P.NO. 27339 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per Anil R. Dave, HCJ) In this writ petition, an order dt. 26.11.2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in RA No. 40 of 2007 has been challenged by the petitioner. The facts that gave rise to this writ petition, in a nutshell, are as under, By virtue of an order dt. 31.5.2007, after considering the relevant facts, the Tribunal had waived the condition to deposit as required under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby the appeal which had been filed by the present writ petitioner was to be considered without deposit of any amount. It appears that the Tribunal had considered the fact that the mortgage deed which was alleged to have been executed by the writ petitioner was possibly not genuine one as there was some fraud committed by some one and in respect thereof even criminal proceedings have been initiated by the writ petitioner. Hearing of the appeal had been thereafter adjourned to 26.11.2007. On that day, without assigning any reason or without recording change of any circumstances, the Tribunal had directed the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- in two instalments. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal had prima facie come to a conclusion in an earlier order dt. 31.5.2007 that the mortgage deed which had been deposited with respondent No.2-bank was not signed by the writ petitioner. In spite of the said finding, the Tribunal directed the writ petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- in two instalments by an order dt. 26.11.2007. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt. 26.11.2007, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned advocate Sri V. Hari Haran appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there was no justifiable reason for changing the condition and imposing a condition of deposit of Rs.7,50,000/- and once the Tribunal had waived the deposit as required under Section 21 of the Act, it should not have imposed the condition. Learned advocate Sri K.V. Simhadri appearing for respondent No.2-bank also could not make any submission so as to justify the changed stand of the Tribunal. He has, however, submitted that the writ petitioner is making an effort to delay the proceedings before the Tribunal. According to him, by approaching this Court at an interim stage of the appeal, an effort has been made by the writ petitioner to delay the proceedings and therefore he has submitted that the appeal should be directed to be heard at an early date. The learned advocates have submitted that the Tribunal is to hear the appeal on 31.3.2008. In our opinion, ends of justice would meet if the Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on 31.3.2008. The learned advocates appearing for appellant as well as for the respondent-bank have assured this Court that they would not pray for time and shall go on with the hearing of the appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that the appeal shall be heard on 31.3.2008 and the direction with regard to deposit of Rs.7,50,000/- in two instalments having no justified reasons for giving such a direction is quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Tribunal forthwith. ________________ ANIL R. DAVE CJ ___________________ T. CH. SURYA RAO J Dt. 4.3.2008 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, at Chennai. 2 State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry Branch, Hyderabad, rep., by its Manager, SIB. 3.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}