The central legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on expeditious recovery and departure from the normal provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued restraining the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad from taking any action for recovery of Rs. 93,88,386-with interest from the petitioner in any manner whatsoever including by coercive measures in pursuance of the orders dated 15. 10. 1999, 19. 6. 2001 and 6. 9. 2001. A further prayer has been made that Rules 48 to 51 of the Income-tax Rules be declared as null and void.

( 2 ) THE petitioners were granted Packing Credit Limit of Rs. 25 lacs and Foreign Bill Purchase limit of the same amount by Union Bank of India, Dayal Bagh Marg, Agra (respondent No. 4)and an agreement was executed in that regard on 27. 5. 1996. In order to ensure repayment of the loan, the petitioners created an equitable mortgage of three houses situated in Mathura City in favour of the respondent-bank. Subsequently, the petitioners were sanctioned additional Packing credit Limit of Rs. 19 lacs and Additional Foreign Bill Purchase Limit of Rs. 25 lacs. It appears that the petitioners did not repay the amount to the bank (respondent No. 4) and consequently. It filed Original Application No. 3 of 1999 against the petitioners for the recovery of the amount before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. They did not file their written statement and consequently, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them. Ultimately by its order dated 15. 10. 1999. decreed the claim of the bank for a sum of Rs. 93,88,386 together with interest at the rate of 20% per annum with quarterly rests with effect from 6. 1. 1999 till the realisation of the outstanding dues. The order further provided that the bank may press into service its independent right for the sale of the hypothecated property without waiting for any order from the Tribunal and the defendants were debarred from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the hypothecated/mortgaged properties without prior permission from the Tribunal. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition in the jabalpur High Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 30. 7. 2001 with liberty to file an appeal. The petitioners claim to have filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery appellate Tribunal. Allahabad on 7. 9. 2001 which has not yet been formally registered. The bank applied for issue of the recovery certificate and the Recovery Officer issued a certificate for attachment of the three houses which were mortgaged with the bank on 19. 6. 2001. Thereafter an order has been passed on 6. 9. 2001 sanctioning sale of the properties and issuance of sale proclamation. By the same order, the Recovery Officer has fixed reserved price for the three houses which had been mortgaged and thereafter has issued certain procedural direction regarding affixation of copy of proclamation order. The sale proclamation has been published in some local newspapers and has also been announced by beat of drums on or near the property. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Recovery Officer, who is taking steps to recover the decretal amount, has not complied with the requirement of law and as such, proceedings initiated by him and consequential orders passed in that regard are illegal.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that a decree for Rs. 93,88,386 together with interest at the rate of 20% per annum with quarterly rests with effect from 6. 1. 1999 till the realisation of the outstanding dues has been passed against the defendants (writ petitioners) by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, jabalpur. by the judgment and order dated 15. 10. 1999. It is averred in para 14 of the writ petition that the petitioners have filed an appeal against the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad on 7. 9. 2001 and have also moved an application for staying the execution of the decree but the appeal has not yet been for