Radha Ravi and another vs Indian Bank, Alwarpet Branch, Chennai-18 and another

C. Shivappa, J.

The petitioners herein are seeking for quashing the order of respondent No.2 passed in O.A.No.47 of 1996 dated 31.7.1997. Respondent

No.1 herein filed an Original Application in O.A.No.47 of 1996 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai against the petitioners for

recovery of total sum of Rs.1,20,74,804, i.e. Rs.16,71,823 under Medium Term Lone, Rs.44,40,447 under Secured Loan facility, Rs.30,47,136

under the Secured Loan and Rs.29,15,398 with interest at 25.25% per annum for all the loans with quarterly rests from the date of application till

the date of realisation and for the sale of ""A"" Schedule immovable property and with costs. Petitioner No.2 is the sister of petitioner No.1, who has

guaranteed the repayment of advance granted to her brother, the petitioner No.1. It is the case of the Bank before the Tribunal that they have

acknowledged their liability and confirmed the balance due, in their letters dated 21.12.93, 29.1.94 respectively and did not settle the loan dues

inspite of repeated requests and demands and lawyer notices were also issued to them on 30.3.93, 24.8.93 and 30.8.96. Though they

acknowledged these notice, they did not send any reply for the same. However, petitioner No.1 sent the reply on 10.9.1996 and petitioner No.2

sent the reply on 7.10.1996 denying their liability. The Tribunal accorded a finding that the applicant Bank is entitled to get the Recovery

Certificate as prayed for with interest at the rate of 25.25.% p.a. with annually rests from the date of application till the date of realisation and

further declared that in default of payment by the petitioners herein, the applicant Bank is at liberty to sell ""A"" Schedule immovable property and to

adjust the sale proceeds towards the amount due and if the sale proceeds shall not be sufficient after defraying the expenses of such sale for the

payment in full of such amounts, the respondents are personally liable to the amount of such deficiency with interest until realisation and issued

Recovery Certificate.

It is conceded by the learned counsel that though the order is dated 31.7.1997, the copy of the order was received by them sometime in the

month of October, 1997. Under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Section 20 contemplates that any

person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an appellate Tribunal

having jurisdiction and such an appeal shall be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of which the copy of the order made or deemed to

have been made by the Tribunal. From the date of the order and from the month of its receipt, as on today, no appeal has been filed and hence the

order has become final.

When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy

before seeking the discretionary remedy under Art, 226 of the Constitution. This Court, where a statutory remedy is provided, may decline to

interfere until the statutory remedy is exhausted, particularly, when the decision of the question depends upon the appreciation of evidence. Of-

course, the Act contemplates deposit of certain amount to maintain the appeal, but it also provides for waiving or modifying the deposit

contemplated. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, a petition under Art. 226 would not be maintainable merely because the statutory

remedy is onerous. For example, the party has to deposit the amount as a condition precedent for preferring appeal. This is not a case of violation

of principles of natural justice or complete lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal to pass the impugned order, that too, the remedy provided not availed

and when the order has become final, it is not appropriate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the order and the recovery

Certificate.

I see no merit in this writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.