- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.39266/2018 (GM-DRT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.11741/2021 (GM-DRT) WRIT PETITION NO.15424/2021 (GM-DRT) IN W.P. No.39266/2018: BETWEEN: 1. MRS. MEENA VIJAY W/O LATE K. VIJAY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT PAI TOWERS BEEINAGUDDA, UDUPI-576101. ALSO R/AT. NO.9/5-2 FIRST FLOOR (OUT HOUSE) 6TH CROSS, 2ND 'A' MAIN GOVINDARAJA NAGAR VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-40. 2. M/S. EMVEE COMFORTS AND TRAVELS LTD OFFICE AT R/AT. PAI TOWERS BEEINAGUDDA, UDUPI-576101 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MRS. MEENA VIJAY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D. SESHADRI NAIDU, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. PRAKASH M.H. ADV.,) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK OFFICE AT NO.38 AND 39 5TH CROSS ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003 REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHANANJAY VIDYAPATI JOSHI, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADV.,) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RA 65/2008 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI ARISING OUT OF O.A.335/2003 OF THE RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.07.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI IN RA 65/2008 ARISING OUT OF O.A.NO.335/2003 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DIRECTING THE PETITIONERS TO PAY 50% OF THE O.A. AMOUNT WITHOUT INTEREST AS PER ANNEXURE 'A'. IN W.P. NO.11741/2021: BETWEEN: EMVEE COMFORTS AND TRAVELS LIMITED REP. BY MRS. MEENA VIJAY W/O LATE KARUNAKARA VIJAY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O NO.9/5-2, 1ST FLOOR OUT HOUSE, 6TH CROSS SECOND A MAIN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 GOVINDARAJANAGAR BANGALORE-560040. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. D. SESHADRI NAIDU, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. PRAKASH M.H. ADV.,) AND: CANARA BANK MALLESHWARAM BRANCH BANGALORE-560006. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHANANJAY VIDYAPATI JOSHI, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADV.,) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN APPEAL NO.R.A.114/2013 FROM DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI. CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORD IN O.A. NO.279/2003 FROM DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGALORE. PASS A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI IN THE APPEAL RA.NO.114/2013 (FOUND AT ANNEXURE -A SUPRA) DATED 19/03/2020 & ETC. IN W.P. NO.15424/2021: BETWEEN: MRS. MEENA VIJAY NO.9/5-2, FIRST FLOOR OUTHOUSE, 6TH CROSS GOVINDRAJANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 MOB 8618209165. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. D. SESHADRI NAIDU, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. PRAKASH M.H. ADV.,) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 AND: CANARA BANK MALLESHWARAM BRANCH BANGALORE-560003 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE BANK). ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHANANJAY VIDYAPATI JOSHI, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADV.,) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE DRAT CHENNAI RELATING TO AIR-889/2015. CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BANGALORE IN OA NO. 279/2003. PASS A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DRAT IN THE APPEAL IN AIR-889/2015 DATED 23.04.2019 (FOUND AT ANNEXURE-1 SUPRA) & ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) W.P.No.11741/2021 is filed by Emvee Comforts and Travels Limited challenging the order dated 19.03.2020 passed in R.A.No.114/2013 (arising out of O.A.No.279/2003 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru) by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. W.P.No.39266/2018 is filed by Mrs. Meena Vijay and another challenging the order dated 11.07.2018 passed in R.A.No.65/2008 (arising out of O.A.No.335/2003 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru) by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. W.P.No.15424/2021 is filed by Mrs. Meena Vijay challenging the order dated 23.04.2019 passed in A.I.R.No.889/2015 (arising out of O.A.No.279/2003 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru) by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). 3. The applicant - Canara Bank filed O.A.No.279/2003 seeking relief of recovery certificate against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,59,57,631/- along with interest and O.A.No.335/2003 seeking relief of recovery certificate against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,09,70,434/- along with interest. The defendant No.5 filed written statement in both the applications before the DRT by denying the averments made in the application. It is averred that there is no transaction of debtor and creditor between the defendant Nos.5 and 6 and the applicant and they have not borrowed any money or stood as surety for the alleged claim and there is no privity of contract with the applicant - Bank. Hence, there is no debt or liability against the defendant as well as defendant No.6 - Company and they cannot be held responsible for payment - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 of claim of the applicant-Bank. They sought for dismissal of the application. 4. In O.A.No.279/2003, the applicant - Bank examined one witness and got marked Exs.A1 to A20 and in O.A.No.335/2003, examined one witness and got marked Exs.A1, A3 to A19. The defendant No.5 did not adduce any evidence in O.A.No.279/2003. 5. The DRT in O.A.No.279/2003 held that the applicant - Bank is unable to prove the case against defendant Nos.1 and 6 and allowed the application against defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 by directing jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,57,631/-. In O.A.No.335/2003, the DRT held that the defendant Nos.2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,09,70,434/- along with interest. The applicant preferred R.A.Nos.114/2013 and 65/2008 challenging both the orders of the DRT before the DRAT and the defendant No.5 challenged the order of the DRT in O.A.No.279/2003 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 before the DRAT in A.I.R.No.889/2015. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRAT'), by the impugned orders dated 11.07.2018 and 19.03.2020 allowed the appeals filed by the applicant- Canara Bank and by the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant No.5 in A.I.R.No.889/2015. Being aggrieved, the defendant No.6 filed W.P.No.11741/2021, defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed W.P.No.39266/2018 and defendant No.5 filed W.P.No.15424/2021. 6. Sri.D.Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendant Nos.5 and 6 submits that the DRT in O.A.No.279/2003 has come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner - defendant No.6 and in O.A.No.335/2003, the DRT dismissed the application of the Bank against the petitioner - defendant Nos.5 and 6. However, the DRAT without considering any of the aspects has allowed the applications filed by the Bank by holding defendant Nos.5 and 6 liable. It is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 submitted that there is no privity of contract between the defendant Nos.5, 6 and the applicant - Bank. Hence, the question of proceeding against the answering defendants would not arise. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C.CHACKO Vs. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TRIVANDRUM1. It is further submitted that the depositors were not made parties to the proceedings before the DRT. Hence, the application ought to have been rejected by the DRAT. It is also submitted that there is no pleading that the defendant Nos.5 and 6 have played fraud and received the money from defendant No.2. Hence, the order of the DRAT is required to be interfered in the present proceedings. It is contended that the criminal proceedings initiated has resulted in acquittal of the accused and the finding recorded by the Sessions Court in Spl. C.C.No.245/2002 c/w Spl.C.C.No.84/2008 clearly demonstrates that the officials of the applicant - Bank were negligent and the Investigating Officer has not 1 (1969) 2 SCC 343 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 recorded the statements of the depositors nor they have been examined before the Court. The finding of the Sessions Court further demonstrates that the defendant Nos.5 and 6 have not played any role in the entire transaction. Hence, the finding of the DRAT is contrary to the material available on record which requires to be interfered. It is further contended that the petitioner- defendant No.5 in W.P.No.15424/2021 has challenged the order of the DRAT dated 23.04.2019 wherein it has dismissed the appeal for non-deposit of 50% of the statutory amount. It is also contended that the defendant No.5 has no role in the entire transaction and she has lost her husband-defendant No.3 during the pendency of the proceedings. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to Tannan's Banking Law and submits that the entire transaction amounts to conversion and in the case of conversion, the remedy to the Banker is to proceed against the defendant No.2 and not against the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 defendant Nos.5 and 6, assuming that they have received the amount wrongfully also, it cannot be termed as debt. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petitions filed by the defendant Nos.5 and 6. 8. Per contra, Sri.Dhananjay Vidyapati Joshi, learned Senior counsel for the respondent supports the impugned orders of the DRAT and submits that the DRAT has recorded the clear finding based on the evidence available before it that the defendant Nos.5 and 6 are equally liable to pay the money to the applicant - Bank as they are the beneficiaries of the entire transaction even in the absence of any contract between the Bank and the defendant Nos.5 and 6. It is submitted that the DRAT has also taken note of the fact that there is negligence on the part of the officials of the Bank. Hence, 50% liability is saddled on the defendants and the said finding of the DRAT is accepted by the Bank. Hence, the finding of the DRAT does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that the DRAT has rightly interpreted the word - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 'debt' as defined in Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and directed the defendants to pay 50% of the amount. It is also submitted that the DRAT has recorded the finding that the money involved is public money and on account of the negligence, fraud and mischief, the amount is paid to the defendant No.6. Hence, the defendants are liable to pay the amount. It is contended that the finding of the Sessions Court has no bearing on the issue involved before the DRAT and the finding cannot be looked into as the standard of proof required in the present proceedings and proof required in criminal proceedings are different. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of EUREKA FORBES LTD. Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK2 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of AMIT H. JHAVERI AND ANOTHER 2 (2010) 6 SCC 193 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 Vs. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI AND OTHERS3. He seeks to dismissal the writ petitions. 9. We have heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsels appearing for the parties and meticulously perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records. The only point that arise for consideration in these petitions is: "Whether the impugned orders of the DRAT calls for any interference in these writ petitions?" 10. Before considering the issue involved in these petitions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts. (a) The applicant - Canara Bank filed O.A.No.279/2003 seeking relief of recovery certificate against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,59,57,631/- in favour of the applicant along with 3 (2011) 1 Mh.L.J.(DB) 55 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 interest at 16% p.a. compounded quarterly from the date of filing of the application till realisation and O.A.No.335/2003 seeking relief of recovery certificate against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,09,70,434/- in favour of the applicant along with interest at 16% p.a. compounded quarterly from the date of filing of the application till realisation. (b) The applicant - Canara Bank averred that on 08.05.1999 it received a remittance of U.S. $3,70,000 from Rabo Bank Asia Ltd. through Chase Manhatten Bank, New York on the basis of the an account opening form, ostensibly signed by Sri.Prakash N. Punjabi and Sri.Tej Narsingdas Navalrai, the applicant opened foreign currency non-resident kamadhenu deposit account for a period of one year for the amount of the said remittance. The said deposit account was authorised to be opened by the defendant No.1. It is further averred that on 08.05.1999 the defendant No.2 came to the Bank and presented the power of attorney apparently executed by the said depositors authorising him to open and operate the bank - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 account, sign cheques, withdraw amount and to raise loan etc. The defendant No.2 presented non-resident ordinary savings bank account opening form claiming that it is signed by the aforesaid depositors and based on such form, non-resident ordinary savings bank account was opened in the name of said depositors. (c) It is also averred that the defendant No.2 presented a letter addressed to the Bank apparently signed by the above referred depositors stating that they need a loan of Rs.1,16,50,000/- against their deposit for personal commitment and they have deputed their GPA holder - defendant No.2 for completing the loan process. (d) It is contended that the defendant No.2 submitted loan application and based on the GPA, executed demand promissory note for Rs.1,16,50,000/- in favour of the Bank and based on those documents, the applicant - Canara Bank sanctioned and disbursed loan of Rs.1,16,50,000/- on the security of the above deposit and amount was credited to non-resident ordinary savings - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 bank account of the above said depositors opened by the defendant No.2. (e) The defendant No.2 issued two Cheques in favour of the defendant No.6 for Rs.1.1 Crore and Rs.6,43,900/-, respectively. Thus, withdrew the whole amount from the said non-resident ordinary savings bank account. The amount in the fixed deposit was due to mature on 06.05.2000 which was provided as security to the loan and on maturity, the amount was adjusted towards the loan and remaining balance amount of U.S. $80,538.46 was remitted to the State Bank of India, Hong Kong on 21.06.2000 for the credit of the depositor's account. The SBI, Hong Kong Branch sent a message to the applicant stating that they do not have any instructions from the depositors with regard to the said amount. (f) It is further contended that the said depositors complained to the Banking Ombudsmen in Karnataka seeking payment of US $3,88,854.51 being maturity value of the deposit with interest. It is also contended that they have not executed any power of attorney nor authorised - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 anyone to receive any loan. The Banking Ombudsmen on hearing the parties passed an award directing the applicant - Bank to restore the amount to the depositors. Pursuant to the award of the Banking Ombudsmen, the applicant - Bank debited a sum of Rs.1,53,83,910/- to Sundry Assets - Sundry Debenture account and renewed the deposit as directed by the Banking Ombudsmen. (g) It is contended that FIR was lodged with the CBI against the defendant No.1 and others alleging that their fraudulent acts caused wrongful loss to the applicant - Bank. The investigating agency filed charge sheet against the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 and others. The criminal proceedings initiated against certain defendants resulted in acquittal by the Sessions Court in Spl.C.C.No.245/2002 c/w Spl.C.C.No.84/2008. The applicant-Bank initiated proceedings before the DRT Bangalore. (h) The defendant No.5 filed written statement in both the applications before the DRT denying the averments made in the application. It is averred that there is no transaction of debtor and creditor between the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 defendant No.5 and the applicant and she has not borrowed any money or stood as surety for the alleged claim and there is no privity of contract with the applicant - Bank. Hence, there is no debt or liability against the defendants as well as defendant No.6 - Company. It is further averred that the Managing Director of the defendant No.6 - Company is no more and other Directors of the Company are not made parties to the application. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected. It is denied that the defendant Nos.5 and 6 have no connection with the alleged transaction or the alleged fraud said to have been committed in respect of the said account of the said depositors. It is also averred that the defendant No.2 was acting on behalf of the said two depositors in connection with certain business venture with the defendant No.6- Company. So the defendant No.6 was a bona fide person to deal with the transaction. Hence, defendant Nos.5 and 6 cannot be held responsible for payment of claim of the applicant-Bank. She sought for dismissal of the application. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts, we need to consider the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant Nos.5 and 6 that there is no privity of contract between the applicant-Bank and the defendant Nos.5 and 6 and the DRAT has erred in reversing the orders of the DRT by saddling 50% of liability on the defendants. To consider the said contention, it would be relevant to refer Section 2(g) of the Act which reads as under: 2(g) “debt” means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application and includes any liability towards - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 debt securities which remains unpaid in full or part after notice of ninety days served upon the borrower by the debenture trustee or any other authority in whose favour security interest is created for the benefit of holders of debt securities or; 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eureka Forbes Ltd. referred supra at paragraphs 47 to 52 held as under: 47. The next question of law, that we are called upon to consider, is the ambit and scope of the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Recovery Act, on which the entire case of the parties hinges. We have already noticed that the appellant has argued with great vehemence that, there was no privity of contract and they were not covered under the definition of “debt”, and as such, recovery proceedings could not be initiated, much less, recovery could be effected from them under the provisions of the Act. 48. Section 2(g) of the Recovery Act reads as under: “2. (g) ‘debt’ means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application;” 49. The Recovery Act of 1993 was enacted primarily for the reasons that the banks and financial institutions should be able to recover their dues without unnecessary delay, so as to avoid any adverse consequences in relation to the public funds. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of this Act clearly states that banks and financial institutions at present, experience considerable difficulties in recovering loans and enforcements of securities charged with them. The existing procedure for recovery of dues of the Bank and the financial institutions block significant portion of their funds in unproductive assets, the value of which deteriorates with the passage of time. Introduction of similar procedure was suggested by the Tiwari Committee. The Act provided for the establishment of the Tribunals - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 and Appellate Tribunals and modes for expeditious recovery of dues to the banks and financial institutions. 50. In this background, let us read the language of Section 2(g) of the Recovery Act. The plain reading of the section suggests that the legislature has used a general expression in contradistinction to specific, restricted or limited expression. This obviously means that, the legislature intended to give wider meaning to the provisions. Larger area of jurisdiction was intended to be covered under this provision so as to ensure attainment of the legislative object i.e. expeditious recovery and providing provisions for taking such measures which would prevent the wastage of securities available with the banks and financial institutions. 51. We may notice some of the general expressions used by the framers of law in this provision: (a) any liability; (b) claim as due from any person; (c) during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank; (d) where secured or unsecured; (e) and lastly legally recoverable. 52. All the above expressions used in the definition clause clearly suggest that, the - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 expression “debt” has to be given general and wider meaning; just to illustrate, the word “any liability” as opposed to the word “determined liability” or “definite liability” or “any person” in contrast to “from the debtor”. The expression “any person” shows that the framers do not wish to restrict the same in its ambit or application. The legislature has not intended to restrict to the relationship of a creditor or debtor alone. General terms, therefore, have been used by the legislature to give the provision a wider and liberal meaning. These are generic or general terms. Therefore, it will be difficult for the Court, even on cumulative reading of the provision, to hold that the expression should be given a narrower or restricted meaning. What will be more in consonance with the purpose and object of the Act is to give this expression a general meaning on its plain language rather than apply unnecessary emphasis or narrow the scope and interpretation of these provisions, as they are likely to frustrate the very object of the Act. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope and ambit of Section 2(g) of the Act and held that the expression 'debt' has to be given general and wider meaning and legislature has not intended to restrict the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 relationship of creditor or debtor alone. Similar view is taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of AMIT H. JHAVERI AND ANOTHER referred supra. The said decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which came to be dismissed. Similar view is taken by the Delhi High Court in M/s. J.U.MANSUKHANI & CO. AND ANOTHER referred supra. 14. In view of the clear opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the other High Courts on the issue, the contention of the defendant Nos.5 and 6-petitioners that there is no privity of contract between the defendant Nos.5 and 6 and the Bank has no merit and is accordingly rejected. The decision relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the case of M.C.CHACKO referred supra, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the specific definition of 'debt' under the Act. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 15. The second contention advanced by the defendant Nos.5 and 6 that the depositors were not made parties to the proceedings before the DRT and DRAT is also required to be rejected. The definition of 'debt' and its interpretation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts makes it clear that any legally recoverable debt is a debt within the ambit of the Act. Hence, the applicant-Bank is within their rights to file an application to recover the money from the defendants. The material available on record indicates that the depositors have approached the Banking Ombudsmen and the said Ombudsmen has passed the decree against the applicant- Bank directing it to make good the deposit amount. The material further makes it clear that the defendant Nos.5 and 6 who are the present petitioners have received the money on the same day from the applicant - Bank. In addition, the defendant Nos.5 and 6 have failed to adduce any evidence before the DRT to prove that the transaction between them and the defendant No.2 is a bona fide one. In the absence of such evidence, the defendant Nos.5 and - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 6 cannot deny their liability. The contention of the defendant Nos.5 and 6 that they have not played any fraud in receiving the money from the defendant No.2 is only a bald statement. The material available on record prima facie indicates that the defendant Nos.5 and 6 have admittedly received money from the defendant No.2 and the said money was disbursed in their favour on the said day. In our considered view, the pleading and evidence indicate the prima facie involvement of defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the entire transaction which is sufficient for the applicant-Bank to proceed against them. The judgment of acquittal by the Sessions Court in Spl.C.C.No.245/2002 c/w Spl.C.C.No.84/2008 has no bearing on the issue involved in these proceedings. The standard of proof required in the criminal proceedings is all together different than the proceedings before the DRT and DRAT. The standard of proof required before the DRT and DRAT is based on preponderance of probabilities and in criminal proceedings the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. If the benefit of doubt is - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 given to the accused, it would not automatically exonerate the defendant Nos.5 and 6 from their liability. Hence, contrary contentions advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the defendant Nos.5 and 6 has no merit and is accordingly rejected. 16. The further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the defendant No.5 could not deposit the statutory amount of 50% before the DRAT because of her poverty. The DRAT has refused to consider her case on merits. The issue with regard to deposit of statutory amount before the DRAT is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NARAYAN CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. UCO BANK AND OTHERS4 held that the condition of pre-deposit being mandatory, a complete waiver of deposit by the applicant with the Appellate Authority is beyond the provisions of the Act and at the best, the Appellate Tribunal by recording reasons reduced the amount of deposit of 50% to an amount not 4 (2011) 4 SCC 548 - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 less than 25% of the debt. In the instant case, admittedly the defendant No.5 has not deposited the statutory amount. The DRAT has rejected the application of the defendant No.5 on 20.03.2019. The defendant No.5 had filed an application to modify the order dated 20.03.2019. The said application came to be rejected on 23.04.2019. The defendant No.5 has assailed the order dated 23.04.2019 wherein the application for modification of the order dated 20.03.2019 was rejected and there is no challenge to the order dated 20.03.2019. In view of the settled position of law, the writ petition filed by the defendant No.5 in W.P.No.15424/2021 is liable to be rejected. 17. The learned Senior counsel for the defendant Nos.5 and 6 contended that the entire transaction in these proceedings amounts to conversion of amount. In support of the said contention, he refers to Chapter 22 of Tannan's Banking Law Vol. 2 of 8th Edition. The said contention has no bearing on the lis involved between the parties. The - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 issue in the present proceedings is with regard to the debt and recovery of the said debt by the Bank against the defendant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has clearly held that debt includes the legally recoverable amount by the Bank. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the concept of conversion of amount has no application to the case on hand. 18. The DRAT, on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record exercise both equity and legal jurisdiction and has modified the orders of the DRT by fastening 50% liability on the defendants Nos.5 and 6 also. We do not find any perversity or error in the aforesaid finding of the DRAT calling for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 19. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:1860-DB W.P. No.39266/2018 C/W W.P. No.11741/2021 W.P. No.15424/2021 ORDER (1) Writ petitions are rejected. (2) Registry shall transmit back the original records of the DRT and the DRAT, respectively. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1