The court upheld the principle that where there are two possible views on a proved fact, the concurrent view taken by the Courts below, if a plausible view, should not be interfered with unless the same is perverse or against the canons of justice or against the law or is a biased view.

DEEPA SHARMA, J.

1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner/Bank has challenged the common order dated 11.02.2015 of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “DRAT”) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 492/2013 in TA No. 02/2003, Appeal No. 493/2013 in T.A. No. 12/2002, Appeal No. 494/2013 in T.A. No. 7/2002 and Appeal No. 495/2013 in T.A. No. 8/2002.

2. The brief facts essential for disposal of these writ petitions are as under:-

The petitioner/Bank (hereinafter referred as Bank) filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 15,49,791.81/- against Mr. S.K. Mittal and others namely, M/s Indo Travel Services Pvt. Ltd., Lamba Foreign Travels Pvt. Ltd., Sh. B.M. Lamba, Sh. M.M. Lamba, Smt. Savitri Lamba before this Court in the year 1985. The respondent No. 1 Sh. S.K. Mittal (hereinafter referred as Sh. S.K. Mittal) who had three fixed deposits with the Bank and the amount due in those fixed deposits was adjusted by the bank towards the dues of borrower, also filed three suits against the Bank, claiming payment of the amounts due on his Fixed Deposit receipts. All these four suits were transferred to DRT by this Court in earlier proceedings, with directions to consider the three suits filed by Sh. S.K. Mittal as counter claims to the suit filed by the Bank.

3. Pursuant to these directions, the four suits, although given different T.As were tried jointly. The evidences recorded in one case were ordered to be treated as evidences in all the remaining cases.

4. The case of the Bank in its suit, in short, was that the Bank had furnished a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 16.59 lakhs in favour of M/s Indo Travel Service Pvt. Ltd. for the benefit of International Air Transport Association (IATA) and against the said bank guarantee, M/s Indo Travels Service Pvt. Ltd (borrower) and Lamba Foreign Travel Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. S.K. Mittal executed a counter-guarantee deed dated 03.02.1984 thereby undertaking to pay on demand any amount which the Bank may call upon the borrower to pay.

5. Sh. B.M. Lamba, Sh. M.M. Lamba and Smt. Savitri Lamba also deposited the title deeds of their immovable properties creating equitable mortgage as security for the due payment of the amount. On 30.11.1984, the bank guarantee was invoked and the bank paid a sum of Rs. 16.59 lakhs to IATA. The petitioner/Bank demanded the amount from the borrower and guarantors, M/s Indo Travels Service Pvt. Ltd., Lamba Foreign Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. S.K. Mittal. On their failure to make payment, notices dated 01.12.1984 and 07.12.1984 were issued in their names, demanding the payment with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 30.11.1984 till the date of payment. The borrower company had kept 10% as margin money with respect of the said bank guarantee and this amount was adjusted along with the interest accrued thereon. Since Sh. S.K. Mittal was having certain term deposits and Fixed Deposits with the petitioner/Bank, they were adjusted towards the amount due and payable by the borrower/M/s Indo Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. After that adjustment, a claim of Rs. 1,29,114.50 remained and accordingly, the suit for recovery was filed.

6. This suit was contested by Sh. S.K. Mittal. In the written statement, his contention was that he had never stood a guarantor for the liability of the borrower and hence there was no cause of action against him. He had taken up the plea that he had signed the counter guarantee document dated 03.02.1984 as a witness and not as a guarantor. He had alleged that since he never stood as a guarantor, there was no lien on the fixed deposit which he had with the Bank and the Bank had wrongly adjusted the amount of his fixed deposits against the amount due towards the borrower.

7. Following issues were framed on the plea of Sh. S.K. Mittal:-

“1. Whether Sh. S.K. Mittal (D3 in TA No. 12/2002) is a guarantor to the bank guarantee?

2. Whether the bank could exercise the general lien on the FDRs of Sh. S.K. Mittal available with the bank?

3. Whether th