The jurisdiction for challenging appellate tribunal orders lies in the High Court corresponding to the original tribunal's location, affirming the principle that appellate orders merge with original decisions.

Judgment :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the 5^th defendant and is directed against the order dated July 5, 2024 and September 4, 2024 both passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata in Appeal Diary no. 502 of 2024.

2. By the order dated July 5, 2024, the petitioner was directed to make a pre-deposit of 25% of the amount of debt due from him within a certain time limit. By the order dated September 4, 2024, the appeal being Diary No. 502 of 2024 was dismissed as not maintainable as the order dated July 5, 2024 directing pre-deposit to be made was not complied with.

3. Indian Bank being the opposite party no. 1 herein, as applicant filed an application before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (North Eastern Region) (for short “DRT”) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short “the RDBFI Act, 1993”) being O.A. No. 392 of 2019 praying for issuance of a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 8,49,31,576.03/- (Rupees eight crore forty nine lakhs thirty one thousand five hundred seventy six and three paisa) only as on July 28, 2019 against the defendant nos. 1 to 8 with pendente lite and future interest at contractual rates till realization along with other reliefs.

4. The facts giving rise to this application in a nut shell is as follows-

5. The defendant No. 1 company through its Directors had approached the applicant Bank on 17-03-2008 for financial assistance for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 9.75 crores and considering the request of the defendants, the Applicant Bank vide Sanction Letter dated 10-03-2009 had sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 9.75 crores. The defendants executed necessary loan documents. The Term Loan was repayable in 72 monthly EMI of Rs.0.32 lacs. The loan was secured against hypothecation of properties described in Schedule-A of the Original Application (for short “O.A.”). The loan was secured against creation of equitable mortgage of land described in Schedule-B of the O.A. Since the proforma defendant No.9 and the applicant bank had agreed in principle for multiple banking facilities, the defendant No. 1 company, the proforma defendant No. 9 and the applicant bank had decided to enter into a pari passu agreement dated 24-08-2012 whereby it was agreed in principle between the parties that both proforma defendant No. 9 and the applicant bank shall have equal pari passu charge over the immovable property described in Schedule-B of the OA and also over movable properties in Schedule-A of the OA. By letters dated 27-04-2010, 07-03- 2011 and 12-06-2012 the proforma defendant No. 9 had ceded the charge over the movable and immovable properties which is followed by the aforementioned pari passu agreement dated 24-08-2012. The applicant bank restructured the term loan by way of sanctioning a Funded Interest Term Loan (FITL) being the unpaid interest amount of Rs. 79.00 lacs to the defendant No. 1 company vide sanction letter dated 26-03-2014. The defendants executed necessary loan documents on 22-05-2014. The defendants had acknowledged their liabilities by signing and executing Acknowledgment of Debt dated 23-03-2010, 30-03-2013 and 06-10-2016. The defendants paid some of the installments in the Loan Accounts and after they failed to repay the remaining installments, the said accounts became NPA on 31-03- 2016. After the accounts be