M/S.LEELAWATI SMARAK ADHUNIK SHIKSHA SANSTHAN & ANR. v. M/S.HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

1. Respondent's Original Application and petitioner's Securitization Application were decided by a common order dated February 27,2015 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, against which two appeals No.384/2015 and 385/2015 were filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal(DRAT). Both appeals were disposed ofon consentas recorded in the impugned order dated February 15, 2016. The impugned order records that both appeals were at the stage offinal hearing and that learned counsel for the appellant 1.e. the petitioner gave up all the pleas on merits but primarily pleaded that the petitioner be given some concession in the rate ofinterest because it was an educational institution having more than 700-800 students on its rolls.

2. The order dated February 15,2016 recordsthat since the appellant i.e. ^ the petitioner has given up all pleas on merits and has shown bona-fides by depositing ^50 lakhs to liquidate the liability, the prayer for reduction of interest was being appropriately considered. Declining interest to be reduced to 10% p.a. as prayed by the petitioner, the DRAT reduced the interest to 12% p.a. upon the condition that the petitioner would discharge the entire liability within the period ofnine months in three equal quarterly instalments.

3. All and sundry issues are now being raised in the writ petition W.P.(C)Nos.4110/2016& 4111/2016 Page2of[4] concerning the order dated February 27,2015 passed by the learned DRT.

4. In view ofthe concession recorded in the impugned order passed by DRAT we are afraid we cannot entertain any plea which lays a challenge to the order passed by DRT. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel made a concession without instructions from the petitioner and that the concession is demonstrably to the detriment of the petitioner, requires the petitioner to first move an application before the learned DRAT. ^ 5. Declining to entertain the petitions which merits dismissal for the reasons hereinabove recorded, we simply direct that ifthe petitioner were to file applications in the two appeals before the DRAT, the same shall be considered as per law.

6. Noting at this stage that on account of the retirement of the sole person discharging duties as Chairperson DRAT,since learned counsel for the respondent appears on advance copy of the two writ petitions being served, we request the respondent not to press for execution of the order dated February 27,2015 passed by the DRT till the vacancy in the DRAT is filled up and application proposed to be filed by the petitioner is considered. But,the money lying deposited with the DRAT pursuant to an interim order passed shall be released to the respondent without prejudice, and if the petitioner offers further payments the same may be received by the respondent without prejudice.

7. No costs. C W.P.(C)Nos.4110/2016 4111/2016 Page3of[4] CM 17317/2016(stay)in W.P/Q 4110/2016 CM 17321/2016 Tstav)in W-P/C)4111/2016 Dismissed as infructuous.

PRADEEP NANMIAJOG,J MUKTA GUPTA,J. MAY 10,2016 'ga' r C fF.F.(CJ Nos.4110/2016& 4111/2016 Page4of[4]