The court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, and the importance of following principles of natural justice in passing orders.

M. Venugopal, J.

C.R.P.No.2680 of 2009:

The revision petitioner/respondent/defendant has filed this civil revision petition praying to set aside the order dated 22.07.2009 in I.A.No.439 of 2009 in O.A.No.101 of 2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai.

C.R.P.No.2681 of 2009:

The revision petitioner/respondent/defendant has filed this civil revision petition praying to set aside the order dated 22.07.2009 in I.A.No.437 of 2009 in O.A.No.100 of 2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai.

2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, while passing order in I.A.No.439 of 2009 dated 22.07.2009, inter alia, has observed that it is convinced that a prima facie case is made out by the applicant bank and therefore, the respondent/defendant should be directed to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs.1,59,74,152/-on or before 18. 09. Accordingly, IA.439/09 is allowed. Registry is directed to issue notice to the respondent directing him to furnish security for the OA claim of Rs.1,59,74,152/- on or before 18. 09. Call on 18. 09.

3. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, while passing order in I.A.No.437 of 2009 dated 22.07.2009, inter alia, has observed that it is convinced that a prima facie case is made out by the applicant bank and therefore, the respondent/defendant should be directed to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs.1,40,47,439/-on or before 18. 09. Accordingly, IA.437/09 is allowed. Registry is directed to issue notice to the respondent directing him to furnish security for the OA claim of Rs.1,40,47,439/- on or before

18. 09. Call on 18. 09.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners (in both the revisions) submits that the Tribunal has passed orders dated 22.07.2009 in I.A.Nos.439 and 437 if 2009 in O.A.Nos.101 and 100 of 2009 without ordering notice to the petitioners in the aforesaid interlocutory applications and thereby violated the principles of natural justice and it has also committed an error apparent on the face of record since it has not adduced cogent reasons while coming to the conclusion that the prima facie case has been made out and moreover, the Tribunal has not followed the ingredients of Section 22(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the ex parte ad-interim order passed by the Tribunal without hearing the petitioners is nothing but a final order directing the petitioners to furnish security for sum of Rs.1,59,74,152/- and Rs.1,40,47,439/- respectively on or before 14.08.2009 and in short, the orders passed by the Tribunal are not based on any materials which has resulted in manifest injustice and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petitions in the interest of justice.

5. Expatiating his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners urges before this Court that the Tribunal has not passed a speaking order in I.A.Nos.439 and 437 of 2009 and it has also failed to consider the lawyers notice dated 19.07.2008 wherein everything has been explained and if the orders passed are allowed to stand then it will cause irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioners.

6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the petitioners are having a good case on merits and if the Tribunal had given an opportunity to the petitioners to explain their case then they would have explained their position clearly.

7. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner/ respondent in CRP.No.2680 of 2009 is having a very good case on merits and only the respondent Bank has to pay Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner and that the petitioner is not liable to pay the respondent Bank any money and in fact, as against the petitioners money the Bank is giving him the gold and that he has not received even one rupee as overdraft and the petitioner by notices dated 13. 2008 and 07.06.2008 has requested the Bank to close the transaction and to return the money due. Added further, it is the case of the revision petitione