1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1131/2006 IN SB Civil Writ Petition No.6793/2006 (Sanjay modi & Anr. VERSUS DRAT & Ors.) : : Date of Judgment : October 1st, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK Shri Mahendra Singh, for appellants. Shri Sudhanshu Kasliwal, Ms. Sonal Singh, for respondents. As per Hon'ble Arun Mishra, J: The intra-court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5.9.2006 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6793/2006, which was filed against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi refusing to register the appeal in absence of pre- deposit and against sale of property for realization of dues in company proceedings. 2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur vide order dated 16.5.2001 determined an amount of Rs.12,42,57,498/- to be recovered from the appellants. The said order was passed in favour of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (in short, referred to as the SBBJ). The appellants challenged the order of the DRT before the DRAT by way of filing an appeal. Vide order dated 1.3.2002, the DRAT passed an order to deposit a sum of Rs.60 Lacs as pre-deposit prior to hearing of the appeal. The appellants failed to deposit the amount as directed by the DRAT and they again filed an application for waiving the pre-deposit. The said application was rejected by the DRAT vide order dated 25.4.2006. As appellants failed to comply with the directions issued by the DRAT, the necessary directions were issued for not registering the appeal in absence of pre-deposit vide order dated 19.7.2006. The order passed by the DRAT was challenged before the Single Bench and the proceedings of sale of property in company proceedings on various grounds. The writ petition has been dismissed. Hence, the instant appeal has been preferred. 3. Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the unit in question was sold for realization of dues of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (RFC) in the proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and an amount of Rs.1,11,00,000/- was realised as sale proceeds. The Tribunal had directed only a sum of Rs.60 Lacs to be deposited. The sale of the unit was made in the year 2004 whereas order was passed of pre-deposit of Rs.60 Lacs in the year 2002 by the DRAT. In the circumstances, the RFC has realised more than Rs.1 Crore. The business was not being continued by the appellants and that should have been the substantial ground to waive the condition of pre-deposit imposed on 1.3.2002 by the DRAT. The Single Bench has failed to address the various grounds raised in the writ petition on merits of the case, with respect to sale and appropriation of amount. Thus, the order passed by the Single Bench deserves to be set aside. Shri Mahendra Singh has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2006 (8) SCC 33). 4. Shri Sudhanshu Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Asrec (India) Ltd. which has been transferred the debts of SBBJ and SBBJ has supported the order passed by the DRAT and the Single Bench. He has submitted that the appellants were not entitled to decision on merits as they have failed to make the pre-deposit of Rs.60 Lacs for hearing the appeal on merits before the DRAT. Shri Kasliwal has further submitted that liability of approximately Rs.22 Crores is on the appellants. The DRT has passed the order on 16.5.2001 for recovery of Rs.12,42,57,498/- in favour of SBBJ. Not a single penny has been deposited. The appellants have inherited the property of Late Sh. K.M. Modi. Appellant No.1 is son of Late Sh. K.M. Modi and Managing Director and appellant No.2 is wife of Late Shri K.M. Modi. Shri K.M. Modi stood as guarantor. Ms. Sonal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent RFC, has stated that whatever amount was realised in company proceedings is not even sufficient for satisfying the debts of RFC. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. 5. Late Shri K.M. Modi stood as guarantor as apparent from the application also. He furnished guarantee for making the payment of more than Rs.2.5 Crores and interest. The first charge on the unit was with the RFC which sold the property for Rs.1,11,00,000/-. As guarantee was furnished by Shri K.M. Modi, it was incumbent upon the appellants to make the payment of the amount directed to be pre-deposited by the DRAT for entertainment of the appeal. They sought to avoid liability of more than Rs.12 Crores in the appeal before the DRAT. Just order was passed by the DRAT for depositing of a sum of Rs.60 Lacs on 1.3.2002 as pre-condition for hearing of the appeal on merits. The appellants did not deposit the amount and filed an application in the year 2006 for waiving of the aforesaid amount. A reading of the application also indicates that Shri K.M. Modi has furnished the guarantee. The appellants could not have avoided the condition of depositing the amount ordered to be paid as pre-condition for entertainment of the appeal, as ordered by the DRAT. They have failed to make out any ground for waiver of the amount of Rs.60 Lacs. 6. Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that on merits various submissions have not been adverted to by the learned Single Bench. Obviously, the appellants could not have invited decision on merits with respect to matter of DRAT as the appeal itself was not entertained and registered by the DRAT in absence of pre-deposit. The appellants have failed to comply with the order dated 1.3.2002. Consequently, their appeal was dismissed. In case the appellants wanted decision on merits vis-a-vis to SBBJ, it was incumbent upon them to comply with the order dated 1.3.2002. This court was not exercising the original jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that failure to comply with the order of pre-deposit could not have come in the way of this court to examine the matter on merits. We are afraid that we can accept and entertain the aforesaid submission. As the appellants have failed to comply with the order passed by the DRAT, therefore, they were not entitled to be heard on merits. In our opinion, no case was made out to waive the deposit of amount of Rs.60 Lacs. The amount ordered to be deposited is reasonable. 7. The order passed by the DRAT is found to be proper and in accordance with law. In the decision in Narinder Singh & Anr. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that High Court cannot restrict consideration to only one of stands taken by the petitioner without even referring to the other pleas. There is no doubt about it that all the pleas raised should be considered. If the High Court considers the other pleas to be devoid of any substance, it should indicate the same in its order, as laid down by the Apex Court. However, in the instant case, the said decision is not applicable as the appellants having failed to comply with the order of pre-deposit passed by the DRAT, they were not entitled to be heard by the DRAT on merits and that order was the subject matter of challenge before the Single Bench. Thus, the appellants were not entitled to raise question on merits with respect to the matter in appeal in view of the order passed by the DRAT in the instant case. With respect to the sale of property by the RFC, the Company Judge has passed certain orders in the matter. The validity of the sale and other allied matter 8. thereto could have been raised before the Company Judge not by way of writ petition before Single Bench. Resultantly, we find the special appeal without merits. It is hereby dismissed. (SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK)J. (ARUN MISHRA) J. GS