2017 (4) TMI 1485 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - the learned Chairperson has directed that since the petitioner appellant has not complied with the earlier order, to the effect that the amount as directed by the Tribunal, if not deposited within time stipulated by it, the Appeal itself cannot be entertained - HELD THAT - Since the Petition is not being pressed, we direct that the sum of ₹ 34 crores should be deposited in installments and as stipulated by Mr. Chinoy. The 1st installment shall be deposited by 13th May, 2017 in the sum of ₹ 10 crores. Thereafter, every week, a sum of ₹ 2.4 crores should be deposited so as to make up the total of ₹ 34 crores. In the event of default in depositing the sum of ₹ 10 crores as directed above, or any such installment of ₹ 2.4 crores, which is a weekly sum thereafter, would result in the protection granted by this Court coming to an end forthwith. Thereafter, the orders passed by the DRAT on 17th May, 2016 and 11th April, 2017 would both stand and uninterfered with. In the event the amount is deposited by 31st July, 2017, the DRAT shall restore the appeal to its file for hearing on merits and in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging orders dated 5th April, 2017 and 11th April, 2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged orders dated 5th April, 2017 and 11th April, 2017. The first order was passed in a Review Application, and the second order was in an Appeal. The Chairperson directed that failure to comply with a previous order would result in the Appeal not being entertained. The High Court expressed disinclination to interfere with the orders. The petitioner agreed to deposit a sum of ?34 crores in installments, with ?10 crores due by 13th May, 2017, and the balance by 31st July, 2017. The respondent opposed this arrangement, citing a history of non-compliance and disentitlement from seeking relief. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the sum in installments, with default leading to the end of protection granted by the Court.

The Court clarified that failure to deposit the required amounts would result in dismissal of the Appeal without adjudication on merits. However, compliance would lead to the Appeal being restored for hearing on merits. Both sides were allowed to maintain their contentions on the merits. The Court emphasized that all observations in previous orders were tentative and should not prejudice either party. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) was directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within three months of its revival.

In case of non-compliance with the deposit directions, the Appeal would be dismissed without adjudication. The respondent could then take legal measures as per law. During the pendency of the appeal before the DRAT, the respondent was prohibited from taking coercive measures if compliance was reported. The petitioner's advocate was instructed to inform the respondent's advocate of the deposit details in writing. The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions with these directions.