TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (12) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate writ or directions for quashing of the order dated 22-4-1997 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi directing petitioners (defendants) to pay a sum of Rs. 46,18,309 along with interest at the rate of Rs. 25 per annum, and also for quashing the order dated 26-11-1998, of the DRT dismissing the application of petitioners thereby declining to set aside its earlier order dated 22-4-1997 in OA No. 911 of 1995 (Suit No. 549 of 1994). 3. Facts giving rise to this petition briefly are that Indian Overseas Bank (the Bank) respondent No. 2 (plaintiff), filed a suit on 9-3-1994, in this Court for recovery in a sum of Rs. 46,18,309 along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 25 per cent per annum, against petitioners and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1995, on which date summons issued earlier by ordinary process were received back unserved and the service report through registered post was awaited; therefore, again fresh summons and notices were ordered to be issued to the petitioners/defendants for 24-7-1995. In the meantime, the suit stood transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, established under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as the jurisdictional value of the suit was more than Rs. 10 lakhs. The parties were directed to appear before the DRT for further proceedings on 7-9-1995. 6. On 7-9-1995 Presiding Officer, DRT was on leave. The case was listed on 10-10-1995; when it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, that on four previous ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d orders against them. After considering their pleas the Tribunal held that the petitioners were duly served through publication in the 'Statesman', and did not find any ground for setting aside the order dated 22-4-1997 passed in OA No. 911 of 1995 and dismissed their application vide order dated 26-11-1998. The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the said order dated 22-4-1997 as also the order dated 26-11-1998 of the Tribunal, on the ground that there was no effective service on them and that the said orders were passed against principles of natural justice. 8. At preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners gave an undertaking on their behalf to deposit a sum of Rs. 13.5 lakhs with the responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after the summons were refused to be accepted at the residence of the petitioners at Agra; report on the envelope sent by registered AD post at correct address of the petitioners for service of summons on them were returned by postal authorities with the endorsement 'refused' and it was only thereafter that the service was effected on the petitioners through publication and they were rightly proceeded against ex parte by the Tribunal. 10. Law with regard to the powers of this Court is well settled. In Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd. [1999] 4 SCC 710, the Supreme Court observed "There is no doubt that the High Court can even interfere with interim orders of the Courts and Tribunals under arti....