V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition seeking to quash the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 26.04.2017 made in R.A.No.65 of 2014, modifying the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, dated 28.03.2012 passed in O.A.No.196 of 2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent bank filed an application in O.A.No.196 of 2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.26,70,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs and Seventy Thousand only), alleging that the bank has erroneously given double credit of the said sum to the petitioner's account on 12.01.2006. But the petitioner Industry denied the alleged double credit by the bank and stated that a sum of Rs.26,70,000/- (Rs.13,50,000/- + Rs.13,20,000/- ) was credited on realisation of two cheques and a sum of Rs.26,70,000/- was deposited in Bank on account of sale of old Tanker Lorries, by way of transfer. The petitioner also contested the application on the grounds of limitation, jurisdiction and non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, has given a finding that the Bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,70,000/- with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a with monthly rests. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in R.A.No.65 of 2014. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal, in respect of interest portion alone and reduced the same from 12% p.a to 6% p.a. Therefore, challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Even though interim stay of the order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal was ordered and notice served on the respondent bank, name also printed in the cause list and that the case was adjourned several times giving opportunity to the bank, Manager of the respondent bank has not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through counsel. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass final order in the absence of the respondent bank.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. From the perusal of records, it is seen that the petitioner Industry was maintaining a cash-credit account for its business purpose with Wallajapet Branch of the respondent bank and on 10.10.2016, the petitioner Industry presented two cheques bearing Nos.570120 and 517563 for Rs.13,50,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank and Rs.13,20,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank respectively and the cheques were posted in the petitioner's account on 10.01.2006 for the value dated 12.01.2016 and that the same were realised on the value date. Subsequently, on the same day, erroneously another credit was said to have been given for a sum of Rs.26,70,000/- to the account of the petitioner Industry.

6. It is alleged by the respondent bank before the Tribunal that the mistake was known to the respondent bank only during reconciliation of clearing by the Branch concerned on 23.03.2010. Immediately, the respondent bank wrote a letter dated 25.03.2010 to the petitioner requesting to reimburse the amount of Rs.26,70,000/- with interest, which was received by the petitioner on 26.03.2010, but the petitioner neither came forward to reimburse the amount nor gave any reply to the said letter. The respondent bank sent repeated reminders requesting the petitioner to repay the amount.

7. The case of the respondent bank before the Tribunal is that erroneous double credit was given to the account of the petitioner and the petitioner promised to repay the said amount, but did not reimburse any amount to the respondent bank. It is also submitted that eventhough the petitioner knew about the double credit given erroneously by the bank, the petitioner did not choose to repay the same. Therefore, the respondent bank issued legal notice dated 18.06.2010 calling upon the petitioner to repay the amount with interest at the ra