Mr. Alok Singh, J.: - By way of present petition, petitioner is assailing order dated 7.6.1999 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRT’), as well as order dated 22.2.2010 passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRAT’).

2. Facts of the present case inter alia are that petitioner (borrower) had availed cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.33 lacs; as per stock statement, duly verified by the bank (Annexure P-1) on 30.9.1994, hypothecated goods of Rs.54,78,036/- were kept under the lock and key of the bank. As per statement of account Rs.41,82,760/- were outstanding against the borrower on 19.10.1994. Undisputedly, bank got the stock insured for Rs.55,00,000/- in the month of October, 1994. Undisputedly, respondent No.5 took over the land and factory in its possession on 17.10.1994 and put its lock and key on the premises. Undisputedly, borrower sent registered notice (Annexure P-2) dated 19.10.1994 to the bank requesting the bank either to sell the goods or to permit the petitioner to sell the hypothecated goods. Undisputedly, respondent No.5 vide letter dated 28.11.1994 (Annexure P-3) has assured the bank to provide full cooperation in disposing of the hypothecated goods, which were kept under the lock and key of the bank in the premises. Undisputedly, goods in stock in the lock and key of the bank were perishable goods and were completely destroyed in due course and now as per the latest valuation report called by the DRT, maximum price which could be fetched would be around Rs.25,000/- only.

3. Initially a suit was instituted by the bank/respondent No.1 before the Civil Judge, Kharar for recovery of Rs.60,47,053/- on 8.9.1995, which stood transferred to DRT.

4. Learned DRT vide impugned judgment dated 7.6.1999 has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.41,82,760/- to the bank with cost, however, in the impugned judgment has held that since hypothecated goods of perishable nature were under the lock and key of the bank and even on the request of the borrower, bank failed either to sell the goods or to grant permission to the borrower to sell the goods, therefore, bank is not entitled for any interest on the outstanding amount of Rs.41,82,760/- after 30.9.1994

5. Feeling aggrieved, two appeals were filed before the DRAT by the borrower as well as by the bank. Learned DRAT vide impugned judgment dated 22.2.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the borrower/petitioner, however, has allowed the appeal filed by the bank having observed that bank was not in exclusive possession of the premises in dispute; borrowers were negligent in not selling the goods hypothecated to the bank, therefore, bank can charge enhanced rate of interest on the outstanding amount against the borrower. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

7. Mr. H.C. Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/borrower has vehemently argued that as per the revised statement of account submitted before the DRT, on 19.10.1994 only Rs.41,82,760/- were outstanding against the petitioner while on 19.10.1994 hypothecated goods of Rs.54,78,036/- were under the lock and key of the bank, which were got insured by the bank in the month of October, 1994 itself for Rs.55,00,000/-; despite the legal notice/registered request letter dated 19.10.1994 (Annexure P-2) either to sell the hypothecated goods or to permit the petitioner/borrower to sell the same, bank has neither sold the hypothecated goods nor has permitted the petitioner to sell the goods. Not only this, even after taking possession of the unit by the Punjab Financial Corporation/Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, respondent no.5 vide letter dated 28.11.1994 has informed the bank that Corporation is willing to extend any co-operation to the bank to sell the hypothecated goods; despite of the assurance given by