ORDER
Arun Mishra, J.
1. Petitioner assails the order dated 13.7.2001 (P/8) passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal on ground of non-compliance of the order dated 24.10.2000. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal had directed vide order dated 24.12.2000 to deposit a sum of Rs. 16 lacs within a period of 12 weeks; this order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai was challenged in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in W.P. No. 268/2001 which was decided by a Division Bench of Mumbai High Court on 23rd January, 2001 as per Annexure P/4. The Mumbai High Court passed the order to the following effect :
“In the wake of the minutes filed today before us in the Court, signed by learned Counsel for the petitioners as also for the respondents, we extend the period granted by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by order dated 24th October, 2000 to deposit the amount of Rs. 16 lacs from 12 weeks to 20 weeks. To this extent, the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal stands modified and the petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
The minutes filed by the parties shall form the part and parcel of this petition.”
2. It appears that Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur has passed the judgment on 9.5.2000 (Annexure P/1) directing payment of Rs. 32,75,502/- along with interest. Recovery was ordered to be made from the mortgaged property. Against this an appeal was preferred before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai which vide order dated 24.12.2000 (Annexure P/2) directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 16 lacs within a period of 12 weeks. Deposit was directed in view of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It appears that when the matter was pending before the High Court of Mumbai, a document Annexure P/3 signed by learned Counsel for respondents and the petitioners was filed before the High Court of Mumbai which reads as under :
MINUTES
“On Mr. Rajagopal Counsel for the petitioners making a statement under written instructions from his clients that the building situated at Bajaj Khana, Jaora, Dist. Ratlam (M.P.) be handed over to the Bank for the purpose of recovery the sum of Rs. 32,75,502/-. i. e. the decretal amount in Application No. TA No. 120/98 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (being the Original Suit No. 20-A of 1974 before the Court of District Judge Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh). The petitioner will co-operate with the Bank for the purpose of transfer of the said property to the respondent herein or its nominee or any other person. On this being done, the respondents will treat the matter as a full and final settlement.
Under the circumstances, the Appeal preferred by the petitioners bearing Appeal No. 167/2000 and Miscellaneous Application No. 54 of 2000 in the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, be kept in abeyance – for a period of 8 weeks. Mr. K,N. Dastoor, Counsel for the respondent has agreed to the aforesaid.
The above is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.
Counsel for Counsel for Respondents Petitioners."
3. High Court of Mumbai took the note of the Minutes filed before the Court and passed the order on 23rd January, 2001 quoted above. Time was extended to deposit the amount of Rs. 16 lacs from 12 weeks to 20 weeks. To that extent the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal was modified. It appears that petitioner did not make the deposit in the extended time which was granted by the High Court of Mumbai; hence an order was passed on 13th July, 2001 by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal. The stand of the respondents is that Bank is not ready to go by the Minutes filed before the High Court of Mumbai and adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to make the deposit, the petitioner did not comply with the directions of the High Court of Mumbai as such the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is fully justified.
4. Learned Counsel for petitioner has made a statement at Bar that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 13th July, 2001 (Annexure P/8) was not assailed before the High Court of Mumbai. Learned Counsel submits that this fact has not been taken into consideration by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the appeal that a compromise was entered into between the parties and authority *vas given to the Bank to take steps as per Minutes contained in Annexure P/3 quoted above.
5. Prima facie, it appears that once the time was extended by the High Court of Mumbai, the order should have been complied with by the petitioner. However, it is also apparent that this fact was not noticed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal before dismissing the appeal that what is the effect of Minutes referred to. In the circumstances, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that he may be given liberty to apply for reconsideration of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. In case the petitioner files an application for reconsideration within fifteen days from today, the same shall be considered on its own merits and decided by the Appellate Tribunal. In case application for reconsideration is not considered suitably in favour of the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge Annexure P/8 and filing of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner if any necessity arises for the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. In case the application for review/ reconsideration is filed, the same shall be decided within two months thereafter.
6. Petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid directions. C.C. as per rules.
