1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6194/2006 State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jodhpur v. M/s Ratan Chemical Industries, Jodhpur & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 12 th January, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, for the respondents. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 7.8.2006 passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in Misc. Application No.451/2004 directing the petitioner bank to accept the amount of Rs.20 lacs as full and final settlement of its claim against the respondents No.1 and 2. In brief, facts of the case are that M/s Ratan Chemical Industries, Jodhpur availed cash credit facility of Rs.15.00 lacs from the petitioner bank on 22.1.2001. On being failed to repay the dues as per terms of agreement the petitioner bank preferred a recovery application before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and that came to be accepted by an order dated 1.10.2004, accordingly, a recovery certificate for Rs.23,51,374.86 with interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 26.12.2002 till realisation was issued. The respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2004 2 preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi without depositing 75% of the decreetal amount as required under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1993”). The respondent No.1 alongwith appeal preferred an application for 100% waiver of the amount required to be deposited in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1993. The Debts Recovery Tribunal without deciding the Misc. Application by order impugned dated 7.8.2006 ordered that if the respondents No.1 deposits the sum of Rs.20 lacs in all upto 31.10.2006 the bank shall accept the same as its full and final settlement of claims. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal without assigning any reason passed the order impugned and directed the bank to accept a sum of Rs.20 lacs as full and final payment. It is asserted that as a matter of fact the appeal itself is not competent as 75% of the decreetal amount was not deposited by the appellant respondent while filing appeal giving challenge to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. I have perused the order impugned and also heard counsel for the parties. 3 From perusal of the order impugned it is apparent that it was passed while hearing the misc. application and not the appeal. The misc. application pertains to waiver of requirement of the sum of 75% of the decreetal amount. The Tribunal while considering such application was having no authority to direct the petitioner accept a sum of Rs.20 lacs as full and final settlement of its claims. The order impugned on its face is bad and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 7.8.2006 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi is quashed. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the Misc. Application preferred by the respondent appellant afresh. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.