THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 4170 of 2010 17-03-2010 BETWEEN; M/s. Neel Madhav Mining Private Limited and another ...Petitioners vs. Union Bank of India, rep. by its authorized Officer and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.4170 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Subrahmanya Reddy instructed by Sri S.Khadar Mohiddin, the learned counsel for th petitioners and Sri M.Hamsa Raj, the learned counsel for the responden Nos.1 and 2. This writ petition is substantially directed against the order dated 10 02-2010 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chenna rejecting I.A.No.56 of 2010, instituted by the petitioners seekin condonation of delay in complying with part of the conditional orde passed by the Bombay Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in I.A.No.1399 o 2009. To the extent relevant and material, the facts are that the first petitione M/s. Neel Madhav Mining Private Limited borrowed an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the Union Bank of India (represented by respondent Nos.1 an 2) towards export packing credit limits. It paid certain amounts an defaulted in the repayment schedule. For recovery of the amounts du from the petitioners (the second petitioner being the Managing Director o the first petitioner), the petitioners approached the Debts Recover Tribunal(DRT), Bangalore by way of O.A.No.823 of 1999. O.A. No.823 o 1999 was transferred by the DRT, Bangalore to the DRT, Visakhapatnam initially and eventually to the DRT, Hyderabad wherein it was renumbere as SA No.53 of 2006. By the order dated 17-09-2009 the DRT Hyderaba dismissed the O.A and the liability of the petitioners to the secured credito was determined at Rs.73,63,604.74. Against the above order of the DRT, Hyderabad dated 17.09.2009 i S.A.No.53 of 2006, the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Tribuna Chennai. As there was no functioning Chairman of the Appellate Tribuna at that point of time, the petitioners approached the Bombay Bench of th Appellate Tribunal seeking waiver of the deposit required to be made b the appellants (petitioners herein) under Section 18 of the Securitisatio and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interes Act, 2002 (for short “the 2002 Act”). By the order dated 09-12-2009 the Bombay bench of the Appellat Tribunal granted waiver of the pre-deposit on condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.35 lakhs with the Registrar of the Debts Recover Appellate Tribunal, Chennai; of which Rs.15 lakhs was to be deposited o or before 30-12-2009 and the balance Rs.20 lakhs on or before 15-02 2010. The Bombay Bench also directed that failing the deposit, the appea shall not be entertained. It also made incidental orders as to investment o the amounts deposited, which are not relevant or germane for the purpos of this writ petition. The petitioner obtained two demand drafts, in all for Rs.15 lakhs on 06 01-2010 and deposited the same with the Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. is stated by the learned Senior Counsel that these demand drafts continu in deposit with the Chennai, Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners als deposited the second instalment, as ordered by the Bombay Appellat Tribunal, i.e., Rs.20 lakhs by way of demand draft dated 12-02-201 (within the time). The petitioners filed I.A.No.56 of 2010 IN (SA) 790 of 2009 (the appea pending before the Appellate Tribunal, Chennai) seeking condonation o the delay that occurred in obtaining the demand drafts for Rs.15 lakhs o 06-01-2010 instead of by 30-12-2009. In the affidavit accompanyin I.A.No.56 of 2010, the petitioners claimed that the delay had occurred inte alia on account of agitations in Andhra Pradesh and non-availability o banking facilities during the latter part of December-2009. By the order impugned the learned Appellate Tribunal, Chenna concluded that no reasons other than inability to raise funds had bee pleaded by the petitioners for non-deposit of the amounts prior to 30-12 2009 and the petitioners thus failed to make out a case for extension o time for the deposit. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal held that th petitioners are not entitled to relief in I.A.No.56 of 2010. It requires to be noticed that in the order itself the Appellate Tribuna records that the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of I.A. 56 of 201 clearly reveal that they could not comply with the conditions imposed b the Bombay Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in I.A.No.1399 of 2009 “ i view of the continuous bandhs in Andhra Pradesh due to the Telengan issue, several Government holidays and the closure of Banks and th inability of the petitioners to obtain the necessary resources.” As i apparent therefore the inability of the petitioners to obtain the necessar resources is only one of the three (3) reasons for seeking condonation o delay. In any event, the fact that the petitioners had obtained deman drafts for the first instalment of deposit of Rs.15 lakhs on 06-01-2010 withi a very short time of 30-12-2009 discloses the bona fides o the petitioner. Therefore the Appellate Tribunal ought to have exercise discretion and condoned the delay particularly since the petitioners ha deposited the second and final instalment of Rs.20 lakhs by 12-02 2010 (within the time ordained by the Bombay Bench). On the aforesaid analysis, we are unable to sustain the order of th Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 10.02.2010 i I.A.No.56 of 2010, impugned herein. This order is accordingly set aside. I the facts and circumstances of the case adverted to above, I.A.No.56 o 2010 is allowed and the delay by the petitioners in depositing the firs instalment of Rs.15 lakhs as directed by the Bomabay Bench is condoned The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai is requested to conside expeditious disposal of IN (SA) No.790 of 2009, preferably within a perio of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is represented by Sri K.Subrahmanya Reddy, the learned Senio Counsel for the petitioner that while DRAT Chennai had retained the initia deposit of two demand drafts for Rs.15 lakhs, it has returned the deman draft for Rs.20 lakhs dated 12-02-2010 and that the petitioners woul redeposit the demand drafts with the Appellate Tribunal. In th circumstances stated on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners ar directed to redeposit the demand draft for Rs.20 lakhs before the Registra DRAT, Chennai within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy o this Order. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 17TH MARCH 2010. Note: Issue CC as soon as Possible. (B/O) TSNR