The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to fulfill the mandatory deposit requirement under the law renders the party ineligible for protection and remedies.

P. JYOTHIMANI, J.

1. The revision in C.R.P. (PD) No.936 of 2012 has been filed against the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 21.12.2011 in R.A.No.881 of 2010, by which the Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai in O.A.No.368 of 2007 as withdrawn, has granted liberty to the petitioners to seek relief before the Recovery Officer with respect to the proceedings under Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, with a direction to the Recovery Officer to dispose of the same by following the procedure and giving opportunity to the parties and the revision in C.R.P. (PD) No.937 of 2012 has been filed against the earlier order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 29.8.2011, wherein the Appellate Tribunal based on the representation of the learned counsel for the first respondent/bank that auction has been held and full consideration is yet to be paid by the auction purchasers, has directed the Recovery Officer to confirm the sale, while restraining him from issuing the sale certificate.

2.1. Let us get down to brass tacks. The second respondent (M/s. P. Khaleelur Rahman & Co., Bangalore) is a partnership firm, which primitively had six partners. The revision petitioners 1 to 3 and the third respondent were four partners. One partner - P. Khaleelur Rahman passed away prior to the proceedings on 8.10.1994 itself and petitioners 4 to 9 and the third respondent are his legal representatives. One other partner of the firm C. Jameelur Rahman, who was the fifth defendant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the Original Application, passed away pending the said proceedings and his legal representatives are petitioners 10 to 12.

2.2. Apropos of the availing of financial assistance by the second respondent/partnership firm from the first respondent/bank, four immovable properties were mortgaged in favour of the first respondent/bank, namely:

(i) An extent of 33250 Sq.Ft. of land in T.S.No.16, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Vaniyambadi with a building constructed thereon in the name of "Wale Tannery" situated in New Door No.1507 - 'A' Schedule Property -stated to belong to Late P. Khaleelur Rahman; (ii) An extent of 0.86 Acres and 0.26 Acres of land in T.S.Nos.16/4 and 16/3, Katchery Road, Vaniyambadi - 'B' Schedule Property -stated to belong to Late P. Khaleelur Rahman; (iii) An extent of 0.36 Acres of land in R.S.No.14, Katchery Road, Amburpet, Vaniyambadi - 'D' Schedule Property - stated to belong to the third respondent; and (iv) An extent of 25870 Sq.Ft. of land in T.S.No.21/2C, an extent of 331 Sq.Ft. in T.S.No.24 and an extent of 4 Sq.Ft. in T.S.No.23, in all measuring 26205 Sq.Ft. in C.L. Hajee Abdul Subhan Street, Vaniyambadi with building thereon bearing Door No.1507-A - 'C' Schedule Property -stated to belong to the third respondent and C. Jameelur Rahman, who was the fifth defendant in the original application.

2.3. It appears that in the year 1996, the first respondent/bank has filed a suit in O.S. (SR) No.6042 of 1996 before the Sub Court, Thirupathur for recovery of ` 2,76,00,824/-with future interest and for sale of the mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables. After the Debts Recovery Tribunal came into existence, it appears that first respondent/ bank has re-presented the papers before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai and the same was numbered as O.A.No.1001 of 1998.

2.4. The question of maintainability was raised by the petitioners 1, 3 and Jameelur Rahman (5th defendant in the Original Application) as a preliminary issue. The interlocutory application came to be disposed of stating that the preliminary issue can be decided along with the Original Application and that order came to be confirmed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and thereafter by this Court in C.R.P. (PD) No.733 of 2007 and ultimately, the Special Leave Petition filed against the order in the revision came to be dismissed