A.M.Shaffique, J. These writ appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 21.8.2012 in WPC. No.29389 of 2007 and the order dated 22.7.2014 in R.P No.906 of 2012. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It is inter alia contended that substantial contentions urged by the petitioner have not been considered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, while passing the impugned orders. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition. The writ petitioner filed R.P No.906/2012, which also came to be dismissed.
2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the authorities, under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has failed to consider the specific contention urged by the petitioner. The contention was that the agricultural loan availed by the petitioner was refinanced by NABARD and therefore the liability to pay interest was only at the rate prescribed under the NABARD scheme. Though the respondent Bank was called upon to produce the DCB Register with reference to the same, no further order was passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal for non production of the document and the matter was not considered at the time of final disposal. Further it is contended that the revival letters, which were relied upon, were not acceptable and certain revival letters were only with reference to the initial cash credit of Rs.73,000/- which cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering the same as proper revival. Therefore, the claim based on the same by the Bank is barred by limitation.
3. On a perusal of the judgment it is clear that the learned Single Judge had considered the entire issue and refused to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. Taking into consideration the factual situation, it is found that the bank has filed an affidavit by way of Ext.P13 on the basis of a direction issued by the appellate Tribunal. In the said affidavit, it is clearly indicated that loan was not covered by the NABARD scheme. In the said circumstances, we do not find any error in the judgment of learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the orders of the Appellate Tribunal.
4. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Sri. Sathish Ninan submits that as far as the question of limitation is concerned, it was considered in detail by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was evident from the materials produced before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. We also find that the question of limitation though not considered by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, was considered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and by this court in the review petition. Learned Single Judge had referred to the contentions raised by the petitioner and had came to the finding that the said ground is also not available to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, we do not think any ground is made out for interference with the judgment of leaned Single Judge in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. We do not find any error in the order in review. All the contentions urged by the petitioner have been considered in detail at the time of disposing of the petition, as well as at the time of disposing of the review petition. Under such circumstances, there is no reason for this court to again re- appreciate the entire materials, as there is no patent illegality in the judgment of learned Single Judge or order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. These writ appeals are therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
sou.
// True copy //