JUDGMENT :

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.08.2015 passed in R.A.(O.A)No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai.)

1. The revision petitioner, namely Andhra Branch, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai, was the original applicant in O.A.No.145 of 2009 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai [in short ‘DRT’].

2. The revision petitioner/original applicant filed the said original application against the defendants 1 and 2 / respondents 1 and 2 herein, praying for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,46,66,302.00 along with interest @ 16% p.a. calculated at monthly rest, from the date of the application i.e., September, 2009 till the date of payment and for sale of immovable Schedule Mentioned Property, namely Flat No.A001, Ground Floor, Kesav Dugar Apartment, Door No.1, East Avenue, Kattabomman Street, Keasavaperumal Puram, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai-600 028 and if the sale proceeds are insufficient, prayed for ordering recovery of balance amount after adjustment from the first defendant.

3. The said original application, after contest, came to be dismissed by the DRT, vide order dated 23.01.2012. The applicant/bank aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal in R.A.No.21/2012 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai [in short ‘DRAT’]. DRAT, vide order dated 21.08.2015, has dismissed the said appeal and thereby, confirmed the order of dismissal passed in the original application and challenging the legality of the impugned order passed by the DRAT, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Facts leading to the filing of this revision petition, briefly narrated and relevant for the disposal are as follows:

4.1. The first respondent was a customer of the applicant/revision petitioner/bank, operating Current Account in C.A.No.4819 and the respondents 2 to 7 had opened Current Accounts with them, representing themselves as vendors/suppliers/contractors of the first respondent company. Current Accounts were opened in the name of 11 concerns and they also approached the petitioner for credit facilities in the nature of Secured Overdraft (SOD) for the purpose of executing the orders issued by the first respondent company. The petitioner/bank favourably considered their applications and extended the SOD facilities for a limit of Rs.15,00,000/- to each of them and they also availed the same.

4.2. The second respondent is the proprietor of M/s.Ramanathan Bio Fuels, Chennai-600 020 and he also availed SOD facility for his business for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and towards repayment of the said facility, executed a Demand Promissory Note in favour of the petitioner/bank and also created Equitable Mortgage in respect of the above said immovable property on 23.12.2003. The second respondent also acknowledged the creation of Equitable Mortgage on 24.12.2003.

4.3. The petitioner further averred that the concerns, which include the respondents 2 to 7, who availed the Secured Overdraft facilities, have defaulted in repayment of the dues and all the accounts became irregular. The first respondent came forward and offered to settle all the above said 11 accounts and according to the petitioner, on enquiry, it came to know that borrowings were done in the name of 11 concerns for it’s benefit. The first respondent also agreed that Equitable Mortgage created by the second respondent in respect of SOD facility of Rs.15,00,000/- given to him is to be extended and it shall be the security for all the amounts due and payable by 11 concerns.

4.4. The first respondent, in terms of the said arrangement, made payments and closed the following accounts, namely

i. M/s.R.Ramanathan Bio Fuels

ii. M/s.Vishnu Bio Fuels

iii. M/s.Suasa Project Infrastructure Development

iv. M/s.Kaluga Turbo Machinery Pvt. Ltd.

v. M/s.Medineeds

vi. M/s.Usha Kiran Constructions.

However, the first