The statutory right of appeal and the need to comply with the provisions of the Act, as well as the constitutional validity of the rules, were the central legal points established in the judgment.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. All the three writ petitions involving the same parties have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The basic issues, involved in the writ petitions are in respect of the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the order passed therein, are as follows:

(i) Whether Sub-rule (2), (5) of Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure Amendment Rules, 2003 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993?

(ii) Whether the execution proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of an original proceeding, which has attained its finality, shall remain suspended on ground of institution of a suit by the judgment debtor in the Civil Court making the decree holder and Anr. party-defendants for decree by way of declaration that the judgment debtor is entitled to receive compensation from the defendants?

3. The first two writ petitions being WP(C) No. 6398 of 2003 and WP(C) No. 6399 of 2006 are in respect of original applications being O. A. No. 56 of 1997 and O.A. No. 57 of 1997 since attained finality. The Tribunal by its common judgment and order dated 22.7.2003 held that the applicant/Bank, i.e., the respondent No. 4 is entitled to get the certificates to recover the amounts from the defendants/petitioners. Accordingly, the certificates in respect of both the original applications have been issued towards recovery of the amounts indicated in the judgment and order. Be it stated here that the proceedings before the Tribunal were initiated by the Bank on failure of the writ petitioners to repay the loan taken. At the time of institution of the writ proceedings, the total liability of the petitioners stood at Rs. 78,85,510.44 in respect of O.A. No. 56 of 1997 and Rs. 1,14,94,681.85 in respect of O.A. No. 57 of 1997. The amount was calculated up to 31.10.2003.

4. There is no dispute that the aforesaid common judgment and order passed by the Tribunal has attained its finality and the petitioners have not preferred any appeal against the same. The Tribunal has passed the decree in both the original applications holding the defendant Nos. 1,2,3 and 6 in O.A. No. 56/1997 and the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in O.A. No. 57/1997 jointly and severally liable for the decretal amount. However, the present proceedings have been initiated only by the defendant No. 1 in O.A. No. 56/1997 involving W.P. (C) No. 6399/2006 and by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 involving O.A. No. 57/1997 in WP.(C) No. 6398/2006.

5. In the normal circumstances, there is no question to stay of the execution proceedings before the Tribunal when the aforesaid judgment and order passing the decree in favour of the Bank i.e. (decree-holder) has attained its finality. The judgment and decree has been passed taking into account all the contentions raised by both the parties about which a mention has been made in both the writ petitions.

6. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 56/1997 and 57M997 which in fact, originated from title Suit Nos. 13/1999 and 11/994, the petitioner instituted Title Suit Nos. 55/2000 and 56/2000 against the Bank and the State of Assam in the Department of Industries claiming the aforesaid decree that the Bank and the State are jointly and severally liable for the debacle of the industry set up by the petitioner and for the declaration that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation from them for the debacle. Be it stated here that the contentions raised in the suits were already urged in the written statements filed before the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 56/1997 and 57/1997. However, no opinion is expressed in this regard since the suits are now pending before the Civil Court. Be it also stated that the plaints in the suit were returned by the Trial Court for filing the same by way of counter-claim before the Tribunal in the proceedings in O.A. Nos.