Point of law: In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

This is a classic case of impudence of a litigant approaching this Court in its equitable writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with blatant falsehood by deliberately making false statement on oath and at the same time challenging the correctness of an order passed by the Chairman, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, on the ground of same having been obtained by fraud by the officials of the UCO Bank. From the pleadings and admitted facts on record, the Court has noticed a remarkable audacity in the petitioners attempting to establish a claim based on patent falsehood.

2. Though on the basis of certain admitted facts, this writ application could have been dismissed on merits, I have deemed it proper to take note of certain pleadings brought on record on behalf of the petitioners, to address the issue of falsehood and overall conduct of the petitioners in approaching this Court.

3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act. Petitioner No. 2, it is stated has been authorized by the resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company to prosecute this matter of behalf of the Company.

4. The petitioners have filed the writ application seeking following reliefs : -

“I. For a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 13.02.2018 passed in Appeal No. R-79/2014 by the Chairman Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, whereby it had set aside the order dated 5.5.2014 passed in M.A. No. 150 of 2014 by the Tribunal Modifying the amount determined vide order dated 17.9.2012 passed in O.A. No. 283 of 2011 and recorded a finding on merits justifying the debt determined by order dated 17.9.2012 against a challenge made to an order passed in review which order is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and unsustainable.

II. For a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.10.2019 passed in M.A. No. 37 of 2018 arising out of Appeal No. R-79/2014 by Chairman, DRAT, Allahabad declining to review the order dated 13.2.2018 passed in Appeal No. R-79/2014, even when the same was vitiated by error apparent on record, patent mistake in recording concession which was never made and recording finding on merits as regard the correctness of order dated 17.9.2012 passed in O.A. No.283 of 2011 which was beyond jurisdiction as the challenge in appeal was against the order reviewing the original order and not against the original order.

III. For a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.09.2012 passed in O.A. No. 283/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna determining the debt due as arbitrary and illegal as the order is not supported by reason for reaching the conclusion and thus the order suffers from non-application of mind and verges on arbitrariness.

IV. For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioners are entitled under law.”

5. It has been pleaded in the writ application that the Company had applied to UCO Bank for a term loan of Rs. 2.5 crore for construction of onion storage and with a view to secure loan amount, it had offered equitable mortgage of certain properties mentioned in the writ petition. The respondent Bank sanctioned term loan for a sum of Rs.1.53 crore vide letter dated 08.10.2003 with rate of interest at 13% per annum or such other rate as might be prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The repayment was half yearly installment to be made in seven years including moratorium of one year.

6. Initially, a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was disbursed. When the Company insisted for disbursement of entire loan amount, the respondent Bank insisted for mortgage of House No. M52/22A, Road No. 25, Sri Krishna Nagar, Patna, standing in the name of Dr. Yashwant Singh (petitioner No. 3) for release of the entire loan amount after getting the said property released from Indian Overseas Bank, where it was kept as primary security to avail Agricultural Term Loan limit of Rs. 79 lakhs. As the Indian Overse