1. This set of two petitions involving the same parties and inter-related issues, having been considered together are taken up for disposal by this common order.

2. The petitioners herein proposed to maintain an appeal against the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bengaluru (‘DRT’) in O.A.No.267/2013, before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (‘DRAT’), being AIR No.316/2016. In view of the requirement of pre-deposit as per Section 21 of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (‘the Act of 1993’), the petitioners filed an application I.A.No.313/2016 seeking waiver of such condition of pre-deposit. The DRAT, in its order dated 30.11.2016, looking to the amended provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1993 and the quantum of decreetal debt in question, directed the petitioners appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Crore) within one month while observing as under:

“5. Considering the rival contentions and going through the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties, the pre deposit of 50% of the debt amount is necessary. The debt amount is Rs.155.06 Crores and odd. On convincing of good ground, it could be reduced only up to 25% of the debt amount. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it to fit to fix Rs.50 Crores, as pre deposit required under Section 21 of the Act, to entertain the Appeal on merits.

6. Accordingly, the Appellants are directed to deposit Rs.50 Crores [Rupees Fifty Crores Only] in the name of the Registrar, DRAT, Chennai within one month from today. It is made clear that in case of non compliance of the above condition, the Application IA 313/2016 shall stand dismissed, and consequently, the Appeal AIR 316/2016 shall stand rejected.

7. List on 6.1.2017, for confirmation of the fact of pre deposit.”

3. The aforesaid order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the DRAT is questioned in W.P.No.356/2017. This writ petition filed on 03.01.2016 was taken up for consideration on 05.01.2017 and the notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents but without any interim order.

4. The petitioners having not deposited the amount required by the order dated 30.11.2016, made another application being I.A.No.44/2017 for enlargement of time with the submissions that the matter was in challenge before this Court. The DRAT however found no justification to grant the application so moved and while dismissing the application also proceeded to reject the appeal by its order dated 06.01.2017, the relevant part whereof reads as under :

“Vide order dated 30.11.2016, this Tribunal directed the Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.50 Crores, within one month from that date. The Appellants preferred IA 44/2017 for extension of time saying that the matter is challenged before Hon’ble High Court in Writ jurisdiction. On account of personal financial crunches and hardship, the extension of time is sought.

According to the provisions of Section 21 of the RDDB&FI Act, the DRAT can entertain the Appeal only after compliance of Order of pre deposit. No good ground is made out by the Appellants for extension of time. Appellants have not complied with the Order dated 30.11.2016. IA 44/2017 is dismissed. Accordingly, the Application for Waiver stands dismissed and consequently, the Appeal is rejected.”

The aforesaid order dated 06.01.2017 is questioned in W.P.Nos.13681/2017 and 34948/2017.

5. The relevant background aspects of the matter could be taken in contentions as follows:

(a) The second Respondent-Deccan Cargo and Express Logistics Pvt. Ltd (hereafter “Deccan Cargo”) way back in February 2010, had availed from the first Respondent-Syndicate Bank, an initial loan facility of Rs.50 Crore which later came to be enhanced to Rs.150 Crore. The petitioners were the sureties/guarantors for the re-payment of the said loan. The loan installments having fallen due, remained unpaid despite notice of demand and therefore, the Loan Account came to be