The superior court can intervene in cases of manifest injustice but must defer to statutory appellate processes if adequately pursued.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. (Oral)--The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to seek the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 06.05.2019 passed by DRT II in OA No 347/2014;

(b) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, to set aside the lmpugned Recovery Certificate No. 246/2019 dated 15.05.2019 passed by DRT II in OA No.347/2014;

(c) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, to set aside all subsequent or consequential orders, by the Hon'ble DRAT (including presently orders dated 07.08.2019,11.10.20 19 and 18.02.2020) ;

(d) Alternatively, remand the matter back to DRT-II for a fresh determination of O.A No. 347/2014 titled Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors."

2. By the order dated 06.05.2019, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) II allowed O.A. No. 374/2014 preferred by ING Vysya Bank Limited, inter alia, against the petitioner herein who was arrayed as defendant No. 4 in the said Original Application. The DRT passed the Recovery Certificate for recovery of sum of Rs.118,85,56,215/- along with interest @14.8% per annum simple from the date of filing of the O.A. till realisation.

3. During the pendency of the said Original Application, the debt owed to ING Vysya Bank was taken over by the respondent Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, and the Original Application was pursued by the said respondent.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the learned DRAT to assail the said Recovery Certificate. The DRAT, by the impugned order dated 07.08.2019 rejected the application for waiver of pre-deposit on the ground that the petitioner herein had not made out a ground of financial hardship. The petitioner then preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 9578/2019. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 04.09.2019 by this Court. The order passed by the Division Bench shows that the petitioner sought to raise pleas with regard to an alleged fraud played by the borrower/debtor Bush Foods in collusion with the Banks. It was also argued that the petitioner was not obliged to make a pre-deposit for hearing of its statutory appeal.

5. While dismissing the said Writ Petition, the Division Bench referred to several decisions placed before it, and rejected the petitioner's submission that it does not require to make the pre-deposit.

6. The petitioner then preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court to assail the judgment of this Court dated 04.09.2019 in W.P.(C)No. 9578/2019. In the meantime, the petitioner argued before the DRAT on 11.10.2019, that it had already deposited 50% of the outstanding amount, and that it was not required to make any further payment. That submission was rejected by the DRAT on 11.10.2019. Subsequent thereto, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner, being SLP(C) No. 26079/2019, was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court on 15.11.2019. We may observe that the petitioner claims in the present petition that "the circumstances in which the said SLP came to be withdrawn included the Petitioner submitting that it has already complied with the requirements of Section 21 , of the RDB Act but clarifying that this aspect had not been pleaded before the DRAT (when it passed the Order dated 07.08.2019) or before this Hon'ble Court (in Writ Petition (W.P (C)9578/2019)). Accordingly, this aspect had not been dealt with in this Hon'ble Court's Judgment dated 4.09.2019 or in t