JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from proceedings further with Recovery Case No. 354 of 2002, State Bank of India v. Madhuban Apparels Private Limited and Ors. till his application for recall of the order dated 29.11.2002 is decided.
2. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties.
3. It is stated in para 2 of the petition that in connection with their business the petitioners took financial assistance from the respondent No. 2, State Bank of India, to the tune of Rs. 14,20,000/- on 14.2.1994. It is stated in para 3 that some disputes arose between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 bank with regard to repayment and hence the State Bank of India filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad for recovery against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement before the Civil Judge but, thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur and subsequently it was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and registered as T.A. No. 354 of 2002. It is alleged in paras 8 to 10 of the writ petition that the petitioner had engaged one Mr. J. Nagar as their Counsel in this case but Mr. Nagar on appointment as Administrator General of U.P. expressed his inability to conduct the case and returned the file to the petitioner No. 1 on 4.11.2002 by post. However, it is alleged that the file did not receive the petitioner and hence on 12.11.2002 the case proceeded ex parte and was decided on 29.11.2002 against the petitioner vide Annexure 1.
4. A perusal of Annexure 1 shows that recovery of Rs. 18,40,450.77 has been decreed against the defendants with interest. The petitioners filed restoration application before the Tribunal vide Annexure 2. However, despite pendency of that application the Recovery Officer proceeded with the recovery of the case and has fixed 8.7.2003 as the date of auction of the petitioners' property. The petitioners relied on the decision of this Court in Ratan Chand Deep Chand and Ors. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal and Ors. in W.P. No. 35757 of 2001 decided on 8.11.2001, which has been quoted in para 17 of the petition.
5. A perusal of Annexure 1 to the petition which is the award of the Tribunal, shows that the petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal on 1.11.2000 as stated in para 12 of the award. The petitioner has sufficient time to file a reply and hence it cannot be said that the award was passed without notice.
6. As regards the decision of this Court in Ratan Chand Deep Chand v. D.R.T. (supra) which has been quoted in para 17 of the writ petition, we are of the opinion that this decision does not lay down any principle of law that whenever an application for setting aside an award is filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal the recovery must be stayed till disposal of that application. If such a principle is accepted than it will give a benefit to unscrupulous debtors who will allow ex pane orders be passed and thereafter file restoration application before the Tribunal, and pending that application a writ petition will be filed in this Court prayed for stay of the recovery till disposal of the restoration application. No such principle of law has been shown to us.
7. Moreover, the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the award under Section 20 before the Appellate Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. There is no merit in this petition, and it is dismissed.