Presented by: Sujana Humagain

Roll.no:90
 Applicant: Everest Bank Ltd. Head office Lazimpat

 Defendant: Debt Recovary Appellate Tribunal & Others

 Decision .no: 8808

 Decided By: Division Bench; Honourable justices: Tahir Ali Ansari &
Bharatraj Upreti

 Case: Certirori and Mandamus

 Propriter of K.B.U Zenith Lata Jhunjhunwala had given application to the Everest
Bank Biratnagar branch to open Letter of Credit for the payment of industrial raw
materials to YICHUN TEXTILE LTD, TAIWAN as K.B.U Zenith had the business of
producing synthetic goods.
 After fulfilling all the legal procedure LC was opened worth 21,365 U.S dollor
which was around 15 lakhs 73 thousand Nepalese currency and it was accepted by
both parties with the due condition of keeping 10% margin of LC by debtor and
out of which 85% will registered under Trust Receipt(T.R) loan in bank.
 It is proven by all the documents related to LC that Biratnagar Branch had paid Us
dollor 21,065.25 to YICHUN TEXTILE LTD.TAIWAN.
 After payment was made my bank respondent debtor had received all the
imported goods from the Taiwan Company.
 For all this purpose debtor had kept the land of Sunsari registered in the name of
Umakumari Chaudary having the area of o-13-4-1/2 as pledge and Premkumar
Chaudary and Umakumari Agrawal had given guarantee.
 After this
 Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal had given decision in the favour of K.B.U Zenith
saying that there is no any legal proof that proove defendant had used Trust
Receipt Loan without proper examination of the documents and without analyzing
what is trust receipt loan in actual sense.
 So the decision given by Tribunal must be quashed by the writ of Certiorari and
issue the order of Mandamus for paying all the principal with intrest up to the date
of decision.
 The case had been decided by Debt Recovery Tribunal and appeal was heard by
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which has final jurisdiction to hear the case
related to banking and financial institution so applicant have no jurisdiction to use
the extra ordinary jurisdiction to file the writ petition.
 To quash the decision done by appellate tribunal there must be serious legal
issue(gamvir kanuni truti) bt tribunal had not made such mistake.
 The applicant had not proove which fundamental right had beed violated by the
action of respondent.
 So the writ must be quashed.
 There is no any authorized document which prooves that K.B.U Zenith had used the
T.R Loan so this firm is not liable to pay the debt according to the claim of
applicant.
 And Debt Recovery Tribunal had given validation(sadar)to the decision of Debt
Recovery Tribunal.
 Supreme court had reversed the decision of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and
give the order of Mandamus to decide case again after evaluating and analyzing all
the proofs evidences.