^^C^wrtuf^ /•v PETITIONER: RESPQNBENTS : BNT THE fflGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE AT BILASPUR.C.G. W.P.nu. 12>4- /2004/^ ::«S Amit Kumar Smgh aged about 33 yrs. s/o Shri Prakash Singh, r/o A- 1, ShailendraNagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. UnionBank oflndia, MamBranGh, 15/154, Jawahar nagar, Raipiir (C.G.) - - 2. 3. ::/-: ^ UnioB Bank of India, regioaal ofiice, Mahavir Gausliata Complex, K;K,Eoad, MaudK^ara, Ratpur (C.G.) Reeovery Ofiwer, Debts RiecQvery TraMmal, H.NQ. 7^7.11,' Slianti K.uaj, Soufll Civil liire, Jabalpur (M.P.5 : ,. ; : '. • 1-0 Satya Prakasfa Jhuiijhuiiwala, aged i^-—a :~> 4-1— \'Ty^&^ fiU^stiM py^,4Q5TS. 1^= kvi 'ft.^rtiS.f 'SSE^i^ WRTT: -PETITION UNli'ER: ARa'ICILES.: 22^:;'AN». CONSTITETIN'OF;'I!^IA'FC^ ISSit^;.Oi?^A ::'AI'IiB^^ <-. WRBT:. BS:. THE NATURE;: OF!....M S]lllAfiWS/ . GERrii0]fe»iRM^ PROHIBCTION OR DIRECTIVE /©8DERS-Mit''FHE-LffiE" ¥TE«E: ETC. . • ' ; -• , :': ' sir: w^. -'E^n HiGHCOURT OF JUDJCATURE AT BiLASPUR. CHHAtTISGARH Writ Pctition No. 194 of 2004 Amit Kumar Suigh 1~: Versus Union Baiik of India & Oftiers ROST FOR ORDER ON 2^ MAPRIL, 2004 sd/- Fakhruddin '!li; •ii^ :i:i:i:i3; yf"^" -^^ ^o9 f^v HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 Wrlt Petltlon No.194 of 2004 Amit Kuinar Singh __ ' Versus Union Bank of India & Others Prcscnt: Slui BhisliiEi. Kitiger, coLiiisel fbr tlie petitioner. Shri Prashant Mislira, cpunsel fpr respondents 1 to 3. Shri Roop Nails:, counsel for respon^lent No.4. Shri Vivek Shamia, counsel for tlie intervener. ^ As per Fakliruddin J. Hesrd. . • The petitioner has preferred this writ petitiQn uilder ArtiGles 226/227 QftheCQiistitutioaofIn.diflbeing aggrifived by the orders passsed by respondent No.3, the Recovei;7 Officer, Debts Recdyen^ Tribuaal, Jabalpur, on 28-8-2003 ^aiid 15-10-2003 in O.A. Ex, No. 131/2000, rejectiag the objection aiid ordenp.g sale ofthe house. (2) Couasel for the petiiioner contends tfaaton 15-5-2003, ftie pctitioncr filcd a 'writtcn objcction bcforc rcspondcnt No,3/Rccovcry Officcr, Dcbts RccovciyTribimalm.O.A. Ex, No, 131/2000 (UIUQU Baak 01" India vs. M/s Raipur LuggagePyt.Ltd.). On. 28-8-2003, thebbjection. was rejected wdthout assigniag any legal reason. Agaia on 15-10-2003, respondent No.3 directed fhe said House to t>e sold by public aiiction for recoveiy of the said debts. On 10-12-03, an auction notice was gublished ./ m 9 &" •.•..:.l •^^T^'4 ^ ^d^ M . in Hindi daily i.e. Dauiik Bhaskar, Raipur. On 8-1-2004, an.othern.otice was published in Nav Bharat, Raipur aad tlie saine ,\vere resisted arLd rebutted by the petiuoner ia Nav Bharat on 10th aud 12t11 tJaaiiar\r2004. f31 Slui Ktager leamed counsel Tor the uetltioner-sutimltted fb.at ttie faouse propeny No,A-l, SIiailendra Nagar, Ralpurwas.soldbypubUc auction on 12/01/2004 by Ihe respondents no. 1 to 3 and ttie sam.e has bccn purchascd by'.rcspondcnt no,4—Satya Prakash JhUDJhuiiwala, Thc said propcrty has bc.cn sold for iccovciy of dcbts diic froni M/s. Raipur Luggage Pvt. Ltd. Couusel for the petitioner subnuts that tlie said sale is iUegal as ffae sale took place iUegal and contrary fo law. He fijrth.er subinits ftiat on 15/05/2003 tlie petitioner had filed a written objection before fhe respondent no.S/Recoveiy Officer, Debts Recovexy 'Triburial,in. fhecase uo. O.A.Ex. 131/2000 pfLlaion. afBaak of India Vss. M/s. Raipur Luggage Pvt. Ltd. It is ssubinitted iii the written objectiou. that he had stated that the objector had purchased the aforesaid house (iininovable property froiu (i) Shri Mehendi Mohemmad s/o. Sliri Didar AU Fatlsta, (ii) Smt. Asaraf Baiii,. w/o. Shii Meheadi Moheiamad FarMisfa, (iii) Shri Murad, s/o. Shri Mehendi Mohamiued Farista aad (iv) Sliri Malik Mohemm.ad. s/o. Shn Mehendi Mohemmad Farista Qoinfty) pn 21/12/1993 forRs.8, l0,500/-aad since ttien the objector is residmg m tlie sald liouse alQngwittl bls fanuly members peaGefaUy, Iiaviag ftie valid titlc, posscssion aad iiitcFCst tlicrcof. It is furtticr submitted that on 11/05/2002 thc nbjcctor found an ordcr of attachnicnt pasted on thc wall of hia liouse, contnining that the house of fhe Objector is beiiig attacbed ia the afoi-esaid execution case aad the said order prohibits aiid restrauis (i) Sbri Meheiidi Moheininad, s/o, Shri. DidorAU Fansta, (ii) Sm.t. Asaraf Bsuio,^w/o. Shri, Mehencli MohemTnad Farista, (iii) Shri. Muradl s/o. Shri lanI!^H:E'-;3iraR:SB^atii^si,rii&>K;&'i^K ;&'i®^ss^§^,SBirasa8S^^•'-..iyai:3^feSs^^^^i 3 '.'f Mehendi Mohenunad Farista aiid (iv) gliri MaJlik, s/o. shri Meliendi Mofaeiaiaarl Faiista, froiu doing any traiisfer of chargiag the " above inenuoned properi5r in any way to any person. Couiisel for the petitioner fiirther contends tliat the certificate debtors are not fh& owner of fifle holder oftlie aforesaid pixaperly as they have sold the same tQ tlie Objector for a valuable consideration ofRs.8,10,500/- and fhe deUveiy ofpeaceful and vacaut possession ofttie aforesaid Iiouse was given to ttie Objector on 21/12/1993. This has been piirGbased by the ObjectQr - Aiuit Kiunat singn. (4) The Coiu-t considered the objection. Reply was filed by the Bank and tKe contentions filed ui..objectipn. appUcati<?ii were denied. It was contended that even if the objectors are in possessidn of the said house, iii question, tlie sa.me is inortgaged with ihe Baiik by virtue of fhe special Power ofAttoruey executed on 28/03/2002,as such fhe Banlt has got the first chai^e over fhe.properi}'' aad may sale the same for realization ofthe outstaudiiig dues. -On 28/08/2003 the Couil npted that even after repeated remiiiders given to the .counsel for Ofojector by the counsel for Baak, noue appeared on behalfoffhe objectorto argue the objectionand the, Uurden to prove the bona fide falls on tbe'objector fh.at Iie has got absoluTe tifle of the property is. question, The Court found Oiat ttiough tlie objector ta Iris appUcation mentloned fliat the aGlcnowledgement of rcccipt of sgile considcration aniouht and. decd of SEdc dated 12/ 12/1993 is ins-rkcd a.s Anncxurc 0-1, but no such docuincnt vras cvcir nlcd by thc objeefor aiid tiie coiitenti.on.s pf fhe objectorwere iiot con^oborated tlirougli an.y docunieiitary evidence. Therefore, ftiere is ao reason to disbelieve fhe reply aiid argunient ofthe BaiU!: on the said objection. (5) The Baak counsel appeared aiid prayed for auctlon, submifted. :umi - :if^^ "»~1fe '•<<. 'MeIieiicti Moheiiunad Farista aad (iv) Slxn Malik, s/o. shri Meliendi Mcshejiuasjd Faiista, frosa. doiiig any transfer of cliarging tiie'above aieritioned property ia any way to any person. Counsel for the petitioner ftu-fher contends fh.at the certificate debtors are not the owner of tifle holder of the aforesaid pi-operty as tliey have-sold the same tQ the Qbjector forayaluableconsideration of Rs.8,10,5007- aad the deUveiy ofpeaceful and vacant possessiou of tlie aforesaid house was given to the Objectdr on 21/12/1993. This has been purchasea by (he ObjeetQr - Amif Kiunar Sm.gli..-:1' •.,-:..:.;':. :. •• ; "' . •;_'., ' (4)The Coiirt coQsidered tlie objeeti&a. Replywas filed by the BaiLk, oiid tiie contentioris ^ed ^ ^ appli.ca.tioii were denied.. It was coiitended that even. if the objeetors are in possession of ttie said honse, iti'questioa, fhe saiue is inortgaged withfhe Baiik by virtye af the speeial Power ofAttomey executed oii 28/03/2002, assuchtheBankhas got the fii-st charge over the.property aad -may gale flie same for realization ofthe outstaadiag dues. -On 28/08/2003 the Court noted diat even after repeated reminders given to the .counsel for Qtojectdr tiy the counsel for Baiik, nuue appearcd on behalf ofthe objector.to argue tli.e objection and t&e. biu-den to prove ttie-bona fide falls on.the'objector that he has got •'^,.' absolute tifte of the propertym questipB.. The CourtfoTina tllattliough tfae objector in lus apptlcation inerttioned tliat itie aGlcnowledgement of rcffcipt of salc coiisidcration ainotiiit anddecd.ofsalcdatcd 12/12/ 1993 is inarkcd a.sAnTic;xyrcQ.-l,but no such. docuincht was cvcr filcd by thc objector and fhe contentioiis offh.e objector-were not corroborafed llirougli aay docuiiieiitaiy evidence, Therefore,'there is no reason to distoelieve the reply aad arguDient of the Bankoiithjesaidobjecticui. I • . (5) The Bonk CQimsel appeared aad prayed fer auction, subaiitefi ai •-^"^-^f^-^.^X^.^'^.^^.'^^i^^^ff^^p s^. ^ forin ete. TKe CbtLrt after considemig eveiything directed the auctiba. In puisua.n.ee 6f the saul dii-ection the petitioner iaatituted a Ciml Suit Np.5- A/2002 in the Court ofleamed IVth Additional Distriet Judge, Raipur&r specific performance, declaration and permaiient ityynction. The chsuleage to ftie oi'derdated 28/08/20Q3.on wh.at grouad hasbeenmade in £hewritten statement. The relief souglit is quoted below. n"The Hon'ble Court rnay be pleased to kindly issue a writ of fnand.am.us, csrtioran, direction or any .other ctppropria.ie writ io set dside and guash boih' fhe impugned orders daied 28/08/3003 and 15/10/2003 '. (Annexwe f/7) loith txSsts fhraugh and resirain the <• respondenls froTfi alienating, transfsrring or recovering possessiqn of the sdid Twuse property in any niarmer from ihe. peStioners and also ctcting ih any nulnner • derogatory to the iitle Ctndpossessicin ofthe petitioner in ^ respect of thehouse. . ' . (6) Rctum has bccii filcd on bcheLlfoffhc rcspondGiitsiio. 1 aad 2 in which it faas t>ccn nicntioncd that itl yicw of thc law laiid doiwn bv thc Hon'ble Su.pi-euie Court in the case of Punltd^National Biatik Vs. O.G. Kl'isfaaan, reported.in 2001 (6)SCC 569, the iast.an.t petition chaliengiag fhe orders passed bv the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not liiaiiltaiiiable in view of i-eniedy of appeal avaiLable to ttie petitiouer linder Seetion 20 of the R.D.B Act, 1993. Itlias been furtlier subraitted fhat in view oftlie sclieiae under R.B.B Act, ty93 no ofher CouFthasjurisdiction&r.adjud.ication.of liabiiity aad reGowery of the, aiuQynt l3y..executioB.b£the certificate whicU. arewMimflieexclusivejmisdictionoftlieDebtReGQ^^^^ Recoveiy OfBcer and fbr tlns, reason{ also th£ i^ maiataiaabte . aad also eoatendEa.' fh.at ^theCiSil Suit No,5-A/2002 ipreferred tiv tlie petitioner Itimself^mthe <%urt ofDistrict'J^ 5 -•;^?W' is pendiag adjuclication and, tlierefQre, the iustant petition is aot iQam.tainable. .;- {7} Returu on behatE' of respondent no,4 Eas also been filed in Vi'hicli it has been menfioned thatat fhe oiitset.he purchased the prQperly l.e.,: House bearing No.ft-l; Shallendra, NaRar, Raipur (CG) tn., auction, ayciTioned by Union Baak of India, SSI Brartcfa, Raipur. Tlus purcnase was inadc in pursuance to tbc auctipn noticcdatcd 15/11/2Q03 issucd by Rccovexy Officcr, Dc'bf Rccovcrv Tribunal, ijabalpiir. TIic rcspondcnt no.4 Q.^LQ cl^posifeed tiie en±b^ «,^^.price i.£,y Rs.30^,26j000^- aiid a-. s<ale certificate, has been issued ^ in fayour bf fhg a.n.swerin.g resporictent afker confii-mationof.11ieSaleonl7/02/;20p4,' , ' (8) , Tbe contention of thfi respondent N074 is that the petitibner has raised the objection'before Debts Becoven- Tribunal but he did aot adduce aay evidence in support offais claim.. The objecUon was rejecfed on 28,08.2003. On .15.10.2003 the Court again passed aa order aBer liearing parfies who were present. On Bofh. oecasions petitioner was aot present. : - ' ' ' '- 1 '.' !.':1' : ' " .. :. ' ^ . ':.:;":.::" (9) Thc ordcr datcd'28y08|i'2003 passcd by thc Rccovciy OHfccr^is pcrtincnt aild rcaclsas unclcr; "One Shri Amit Kumar, Singh has ftled 'an objeisioh appliajfian. through his ajunsel Shri Manoj ' . ,. ; , Scmghf before fhis Autfwrity. It is inter-aiia subrnitled ,: ' fhat in^lhe.smd appUaitian 'f3'iat''lhe propertg bearing y / Hozise No.A-lf ShaSeSnra Itagar, Raipur, attcixhed by this Tribunal, ivcis purchased 6y^hijn on 21/12/1993 and STRCS tften ?fte o^ctor tfiat'^ tefcfe ^e a^ '.; s. 1 tifte-over ,fhe propen^^ anS'has pwghased the same ; . &e/bre ^ a?(e^3mQr^fa^o^<te^saih:Z ftQiKeTna^,^^^^^^^^)^^^^^ the certificate. Del^rs ira^/aiwi^^l^ Saiifc. Jfe ftas.. ^^^^^ ^ furfher prayed (o ^moye <te ^tacKr^n^ q^ tte said ,'\^^^^ >^ ^•m A'.sfi.a o •».*«. hjouse and stay the fiirfher proceedings cigainsi ihe objector who is the bonafide purchctser. The CH Bank has filed theirreply and denied the . . • conientions ofthe objectQrs. R was submitted by the Bank thctt even ifihe objectors is having the possession since tne same is mongaged ivith the bank and by virtues of Spedal Power of Attomeg executed on - 28/03/2002, the CH Bank has got the first charge over the property and cdn sell fhe same for recilizatwn ofzhe outstanding chies. Arguments on behalf of CH Bank heard ccnd Record perused. It is pertinent io mention tha.t none appeared for ihe objecf-or eiien afi.er repeated rentina.er given lo his coimsel by the counse! fot CH Bank fo argue ihe objecfion. Tlw burden fo prove the bonafide falis on the atgector fha.t he has got absohiie fiile qf fhe propeftu.in guestion. On perusal of the record it is found that though fhe objector in his application mentioned that the dcknowlecSgement of receipf of sale consideration amount and deed of sale daied 31/13/1993 ismarked as Annexure Q-J, but no such. documeizt was ever filed by the objector. Thus, Oze contentions :of the objector 's not coTroborated through ariy doa.imentarg evidence. Therefore, there is no reason lo disbelieve tfze reply cind argument ofthe on CH bank on the said objection. Accordingly, Ipass ihe folloiuing order. , . At •• . • '. . .. • - . • • . • ORJ>ER , ; In the result the objecdion application is considereS but has goi no merii and is digniissed accordingly, CH Bdnk io take steps for auction ofihe properti/. •- . ' ' ; Thc casc was Ustcd on 15/10/2003. Thc Tribunal passcd aii ordcr 1s relwarttaad auoted belcw: . ; ^ 7 fii."^-. "&||c|c<4, lcf, ^RT ^ft ^t sn?fte arf^ snSicfcMi ."^. •ffc???roT 4 •1nlt?)l4'l 'Ef?t 'ffl'aNT 'c^t PTSTT S^I t^ •'fl.<?ll4l ^' ^Nf^cr- •qn^ i ..Cc- 3l|c|c<cp STTSTi 'ltT^i i*Ti fNfe.^ fSTii'cn 'cf?t A ^ yc?3~<"i ^ 7I^ @3s_4. ^^rt y<t>'<ui •'qff • 't>l<4c||&l' Rl 13/05/2002;^ ^fr ^1'.4t- ?ref ^iteft gra ^?T w ^t t ^fe .PiPfa ^Nt ^r y*^ut ^ I^NT^. _J\ f^ \ ____f_ _ L.__._^_. _ ^^,^,,L T3TT ^ f'sf^ <j^|'^ '^•!i^ ^l^ ift •d?l441^'l ^Cf' ^t 1 ' • • . .. . -\ :, \ .3KT: 3TT^7f? fq? cf5T '&j]qqT|./iiqc;Tl..^q'|cp|-< ' "TKTT t, OT?^T •rTl"ll<Tl t M^T^ 22,59,000 ^T ^^ ^ • "1IC1I1I 4,62,000'?q t- ^iqull—TT^ ^ .'y <»'<"! 1^-11'ft 15-01-2004" • . (9) Leamed coimsel for fhe petitioner subinits that the Tnbunal Uas ua jurisdiction. He reUed upon fhejudgmenf offhe Supreme Courtin the case of Ranclihoddas Chliagaalal ¥s. Devafl Supdu Dorifc and otliers, reponed tn AIR 1977 SC ISIT. TIils case relates to speclflc performance ofthecontract ia wBicli it is faeld that- ~\" <: . ^- The pre-em.inent qiiestion in this appeal is whether ihe respondent hcsa been reculg and wiHing to perfonn the agreemenl entered into with the appeliani. The case of . ^ the appellanl is ihat there wcisdn oral agfeentent for sale of propertg consisting of agriajiUwal lcind ad.measuring 23 acres approximately for a sum of Rs.17,000/-.^ The respondent from time to time paid Rs.12,000/- to the appellant The respondent was also in possession of the property. The appe!!ant ca??e.d upon the respondenf to paytheflill amount ofpurchase price. The responSent failed io do sp. Theplaintiff, on . regpondents refusal to perform. ihe agreement filled ihe SUlt' ^ . : ! -. . . • Hc farthcr inlicd upon thc judgmcnt in +111: casc ofladtistria! Cfedit aad Isvestnient Cor^oration of Indta Ud. Vs. Qrapco Xnduatries Ltd aad_otfae»areported ia. 1999 (41 SCC 710. Thatwas the casewhereIGICI filed an application under Section 19 offlie Act cla-uniae aa aiuouiit ofover thn-ty six and a holf crores agaiast. respoiidents No. 1 aad 2 .jointly aud sevei-aily in that case oa that very day the Tribun.al granted aii order of uijiinction and restraiiied flie respondeiits trora trqiisfemag or alienattrig fue properties hypofhecated. io IGICI and rurther appoiating a Special Officer for laakuig aa ulvento^ of fhe assets and propeities faypothecafed aiid mortgaged by the respondents in. favour of ICICI. By the 'saaie order, a show cause notice was.also issued by the Tribunal to ffae respoiideuts cgIUng upon ffaem to show causewithin 15 days why teDiporaiy injunction should not be graated. The fesoondents moved the Hiah Court uader ArUcle 227 of the Constltution pra}Tng for settmg aslde tlie ex parte order of the Tnbunal. . ., . (10) Hon'ble Supreine Court held that th.e Tribunal cpnstituted zuider fbe Act has jurisdlction to grEunt aii ad-intenai ex parte order of iiijun.ction or stay a.gaiast '&.e defendaiit on aii appHcsi.tiiOn. filed by the baiik or fhe fiiiancial uistitation for. recoveiy of debt as defined under Clause (g) ofSection 2 offhe Act. When Section 22 ofthe Act says tbatfhe Tribunal shali not be bound by tfae procedurc laid down by tlie Coae of Civil Prooedure, it does not meaii tliat it will aot have j'tuisdictioii to exercise powers ofa Courtas contaiued jnthe C.P.C. Rather, fhe Tribunal caa tiavel bevond the Code of Civil Procedure aad the onlv fetter tfaat is put on its powers is to observe the prmciples.of natural justice. Meaaiag. has to be glven to Section 22 ofttie ACt as here the Tribuaal is exereistag powers of a Cdvil Court wlule tnniig a nioney suii. Furfher when power is givcn to tfac Tribuiial to raakc aii intcriin ordcr by way ofaiiiiijunctioaor a sto.y, it itihcrcs in it thc powciMQ graat that ordcr cvcn cx partc, if it is so ui tlie interest ofjusticeandasperfbe requicepients as spelt out in. the judgnient of the Supreaie Court ia Morgsn Stanley Mutual Fnnd vs. Karticb Das reported ia(1994l 4 SCC 225. Hon'ble Supreme Cou'rt did not iu.terfere 'with the inipugaed judgiuent of Higfa Court settuig aside tlie order ofTribunal. But fhat is only because ofpassage pftmie and zvifhout fhe Supreaie Court fcaowitig fhe stage ofproceednigs befoie uie'Tnbi on the application filed by ICICI uiider Section 19(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Siipreme Court further held that it wiU however be open to the Tribiuial to^pass aji iD.terim. order on fhe plea of ICICI ifthe matter is still •pendingbefore it. Iu para 16 ofthe said judginent HouTsle Siiprem.e Cotirt held tb.at'wliUe not agreeiag ttle views expressedby tfae High Court, wewill not inTerfere wltb. fhe impugned iudgment in vlew of The ctrcuinstances. narralEdabove. ' Thc Hon'ble Apcx Court iii tfac niatter ofAHahabadBaiik Vs. Canara ^Bank, rcportcdlis 2000 AIRSCW 1347 Iicltl fhett; • .0 ^ r /' L-. Af the siage of cidjtidication under Section 17 an,d execution of the certificate under Section 35 etc. the provisions ofthe R.D.B.Act. 1993 confer exclusiv.e jurisd.ictionin the Tribunal and the Recovefy Offiixr, in . resped of debts payable to . Banks and finanda'i institufions" (11) So far.as the present case is con.cen.ied, t& th.e case of M/s. Kowa Spianina Ltd. and Others vs. Debt Recoves-y Tribnnal and uAers_reported m A1R 2004 MP 1 SFull Bench) it is held fhat an appeal Ues tofhe Txibunal agamst'aiiy order or an order which substaiitiaUs' aSect some rights or liabflities of fhe party aad is not confined to the fiaal ord.er alone aad it is farfher held that under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia, statuton' remedy is provided under statue for prefentag appeal. (13) Chapter III of.tlie Recoveiy of Debts Due to Baaiks euid Financial Institutions Act 1993 deals •with the iurisdiction. powers and authority ofTribunals. Section 17 offhe Act reads as under; S17. Jurisdicfion, powej's drui authoriiy of Tribuna.ls (1)A Tribunal shall exercise, on andfrom the appointed day, thejurisdicxion, poiuers and authoritu to entenain and dedde applicalwns front the banks and fmandal instilutwns for recavery ofdebts due to such banks and finanaal institiitions'.. Section 17-A oftlie Act reads as under: '17-A slipulates pawer of Chairperson of Appellate Tribunai and Section 18 deals with bar ofjurisdictwn." Section 20 of Tlie Act reads as under: "20. Appeal fo the appettate Tribunal (1) Save as provided in sub~sec.(3) any person ciggrieved by an order mctde. or deemed io have been mctde by a 'Wbunal under this Act jnay prefer an appeat io an Appellaie Tribunal havingjurisdictwnin the trtSttef''^ j M^ Section 21 deals vuitli deposit of aiiiount of debt due; 011 filiag appeal. The aaid provisian reads as under: 21. Deposit of arriount of debt due, onfiling appeal, - where an appeal is preferred by any person from ivhom ihe a.m.oum of debt is due to a bank or a finanddl institution or- .a asitsorti.um df banks or finandal •institutions, such appecu shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal seventy five per cent 6f ihe amm.ird of debt so duefroTn.him.as determined by the TritfunalunSer Sectionl9: Provided thcd the Appellate Tnbunal may, for reasons to be recorded in imting, waive orredu.ee the amount t6 be deposited under this Section'. Section 22 of the Act reads as under: 'Poivers of Tnbunal - Tribunal can exerdse powers of diiil Court as containedin Civil P.C. -Only fetter put on its powers is to observe principles ofnatural justice. (13) Iil fhe instaiit case fhe petitioner subinitted an objection application and fhe sam.e v^as en.tertatn.ed but he did not file anv ssde deed aiid tne Court has corisidered fhe objection. fl4) Leamed counsel for the resoondents ao. 1 to 3, on tlie oftier liand, relled upon declslons reported m 2001 (6) SCC 569 (P?sa|ats H'attoaa! Baak Vs. O.C. Krisiisaa, AIR 2002 SC 1479 (Unloa ofladlays, Dclhi Bar As.sociation), AIR 2002 SC 2873 ( ni/s.illra L-aUasdsoas ¥s. M/s. Lassmi Commercial Bank aiid AIR 2004 SCW 964 ( Mrs. Janki Vashdeo .Bkojwcuii and another Vs.. ladusind Banh litd. and ot'hefs }. (15) Evenrthiag bas been considered by AIR 2004 MP 1 (F'uU Bench) in tne matter ofM/'s. Kowa Spinaiag Ltd. aad~ others Vs. Rficov^ry.Trlbunal and.others. . . ; i . 12 ^. (16) Ha.vr&g cousidered.the facts ^n-d circuia.staii.ces oi the case, inaterial on record, io. the opinion of this Court, n.o ca-se is ixiadE out warrantm.g uitenerence Tsy fbis Court in fhe uiipugned.orders dated 28/08/2003 and 15/10/2003 in exercise ofjurisdiction under Article 226 offh.e CoHstitution of laclia. ' . (17) Counsel for fhe petltioner lasily submitted tfaat the petitioner "iay bc allonrcd to prcfcr an appcal bcfoFc thc Appcllatc Trib.unal undGr Scction 20 of thc Rccbvcrv of Dcbts Duc to JBaiik's and Fincuicial InstituttortsAct, 1993 Act. (18) The pefitioner inay prefer an appealwithin. a period of 30 days from fhe date offhis order before fhe AppeUate Tribunal uuder provisions contam.ed in Section 20 of the Act aiid on siich appeal beiiig filed, fhe AppeUate Tribunal shaU decide ttie same on its own merits is. accordance with law wifh.outbeing influenced by any ofthe obserwations made m fliis order. ! (19) Witb tlie aforesaid observations .and directi.on.s; fhis petitton staads .disposed o£ ( Fakhruddin Judge