The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal under the RDBFI Act are not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and have the same powers as a civil court for certain matters.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 19.08.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4744 of 2013 whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed the writ application holding inter-alia that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, rather it will have power to regulate their own procedure. The Hon'ble Single Judge has further held that before filing of application u/s. 22 (2)(b) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RDBFI Act') by the Petitioners-Appellants, not only written statement had been filed by the them but even evidence on affidavit had been filed and thereby the question of violation of principle of natural justice does not arise.

In the writ application, the appellants have challenged the order dated 22.07.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as DRAT) whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as DRT) has been dismissed on the ground that since one appeal has been filed against the dismissal of three different applications and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and have further proceeded to treat the appeal filed against the rejection of recall of the order dated 17.06.2013 passed by the DRT, Ranchi. The said appeal has been dismissed by DRAT with cost of Rs. 15,000/- on, the ground that the appellants are trying to protract the proceeding before DRT, Ranchi

2. The Case of the petitioners-appellants is that petitioner no. 1 is a company engaged in the business of wholesale trading of Gold Jewellery. During the course of its business, the appellants applied before the Opera House Branch, Mumbai and Ballygunj Branch, Kolkata for gold loan under the State Bank of India Gold Loan Scheme. As per the terms of the Agreement, the Bank delivered Gold having value of 100% for which the appellants furnished following Bank guarantee to respective Banks through its Branches:

(i) Bank guarantee of Rs. 95 lacs had been submitted to the Opera House Branch, Mumbai;

(ii) Bank guarantee of Rs. 175 lacs had been furnished to the Ballygunj Branch, Kolkata.

As per the terms of the aforesaid Gold Loan Agreement, the appellants were under statutory obligation to maintain 110% security in the form of Bank guarantee with respect to the Gold Loan taken from those Banks depending upon the price of the gold in the international market. Appellants had furnished such Bank guarantees to those Banks, through the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Ranchi. Due to huge fluctuation of price of Gold in the market, the appellants could not maintain the 110% of security and thereby made default in maintaining the same. On such default, the Opera Branch, Mumbai and Ballygunj Branch, Kolkata immediately invoked their respective Bank guarantee and realized the entire amount under the scheme. After such invocation, the Respondent Bank filed an Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi for recovery of following amounts from the appellants; i.e. (i) Opera House Branch, Mumbai Rs. 4.15 lakhs (as against the limit of Rs. 95 lakhs, and (ii) Ballygunj Branch, Kolkata Rs. 1.47 crores (as against the limit of Rs. 175 lakhs. The appellants appeared in the aforesaid case before DRT, Ranchi and filed written statement, evidence on affidavit and thereafter, in order to substantiate the stand of the appellants in written statement, a petition dated 18.02.2011 was filed under Section 22(2)(b) of the 'RDBFI Act' inter-alia, for discovery and production of relevant documents by the respondent Bank before the DRT. The aforesaid petition of the appellants was allowed by the DRT, Ranchi, vide order dated 15.12.2011, wherein most of the documents including documents mentioned at serial Nos. 3,