V. Ramasubramanian JUDGMENT
A.S. Bopanna, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7530 of 2019 whereby the High Court of Delhi has permitted the Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein to prosecute the appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ('DRAT' for short) without pre-deposit of a portion of the debt determined to be due, as provided Under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 ('RDBA Act' for short). The Appellant/Bank claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court in the instant appeal.
3. This Court while taking note of the matter at the first instance, had through the order dated 22.11.2019 directed the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to deposit an amount of Rs. 20 Crores before the Registry of this Court within a period of 8 weeks. In the said order it was indicated that the further proceedings in the appeal before the DRAT shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing or till the date of deposit of the said amount by the Respondents No. 1 and 2, whichever is earlier. The deposit as directed by this Court has not been made by the Respondents No. 1 and 2. The Appellant/Bank, therefore, alleging that there is disobedience of the order passed by this Court has filed the accompanying Contempt Petition seeking action against Respondents 1 and 2. In that background, since both these matters pertain to the same issue, they are taken up together, considered and disposed of by this common order.
4. The brief facts leading to the present proceedings is that the Respondent No. 3, namely, Hindon River Mills Ltd. had availed financial assistance from the Respondent No. 6- IFCI Ltd. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 had offered their personal guarantee in respect of the said financial assistance. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 had defaulted in re-payment of the dues and the account having been classified as non-performing asset was thereafter auctioned by Respondent No. 6-IFCI Ltd. wherein the Appellant herein was the successful bidder and accordingly, the unpaid debt and non-performing asset was assigned in their favour. The assignment as made was assailed by the Respondents No. 1 to 3 before the High Court in WP(C) No. 14999 of 2006 which came to be dismissed and the SLP(C) No. 35004 of 2011 filed was taken note by this Court and in the said proceedings the settlement which was entered into between the parties was recorded and disposed of. As per the settlement, the Respondents No. 1 to 3 had agreed to repay the sum of Rs. 145 Crores with interest at 15% per annum subject to the same being repaid on or before 31.07.2012. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 are stated to have not adhered to the terms of settlement and the re-payment was not made. The Appellant Bank, therefore, instituted recovery proceedings by filing an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT' for short), New Delhi in O.A. No. 281 of 2015. In the said proceedings the Appellant Bank claimed that the Respondents No. 1 to 3 would be liable to pay the entire outstanding since the benefit of the settlement wherein the