JUDGMENT :

Sanjib Banerjee, J.

(Prayer in C.R.P.No.2036 of 2021: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.6.2021 passed in AIR.No.372 of 2019 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai filed against the final order dated 20.09.2019 passed in T.A.370/2016 (O.A.No.226/2015) on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.

C.R.P.No.1155 of 2021: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.3.2012 made in AIR No.372 of 2019 on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.)

1. The two petitions arise out of an initial order of deposit made by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the consequential order of dismissal upon the deposit not being made. The initial order was made on March 24, 2021 and the order of dismissal was passed on June 28, 2021.

2. By the order dated March 24,2021, the delay of about 12 days in preferring the appeal was condoned and the appellate tribunal noticed that the petitioners had challenged the order dated September 20, 2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, by which proceedings under Section 19 of the then Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 stood decreed for recovery of the sums of Rs.2,74,85,531.77 and Rs.7,08,533/- (total amount of Rs.2,81,94,064.77) together with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. The appellate tribunal directed the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of Rs.1 crore with the Registrar of such tribunal in two equal installments, the first of which was to be made within four weeks of the date of the order and the next within four weeks thereafter. The order also recorded that in the event of failure to make either part of the pre-deposit, the appeal would stand automatically dismissed.

3. When the matter was next taken up on June 28, 2021. The tribunal noticed that no amount had been deposited. The tribunal, thereupon, formalised the order of dismissal.

4. According to the petitioners, they were not the original borrowers and were subsequent purchasers of a cardamom estate that had been mortgaged by the original borrowers in favour of the respondent bank. The petitioners complain that no attempt was made either by the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in ascertaining the extent of these petitioners’ liability, referable to the cardamom estate, and the quantum of pre-deposit required to be made by these petitioners. There appears to be some substance in such assertion; but in the ultimate analysis it may bring no cheer to the petitioners herein.

5. The petitioners were impleaded as parties to the petition instituted by the respondent bank under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Despite the due service, the petitioners herein, as the respondents Nos.10 to 13 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, took no steps to defend the bank’s claim. Though it appears from the order dated September 20, 2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that these petitioners had used a written statement, it appears that in the absence of representation on behalf of the petitioners, the bank’s claim was set down to be heard ex parte against these petitioners. It is also submitted by the parties that an application to set aside the order by which the Debts Recovery Tribunal set the matter down for ex-parte hearing qua these petitioners was also dismissed shortly prior to the final order dated September 20, 2019 being passed by such Tribunal.

6. In the elaborate operative part of the order dated September 20, 2019, there is a reference to a term loan account in respect of which the borrowers were adjudicated to owe a principal sum of Rs.2,74,85,531.77 to the bank. In the other term loan account, the borrowers were adjudged to be liable to repay a sum of Rs.7,08,533/-. Interest was granted in respect of the money due under both term loans with effect from March