INDIAN DELCO PVT. LTD. Vs. CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s Indian Delco Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition impugning order dated 5th March, 2014 passed by the Chairman, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi-I (Appellate Tribunal for short). It is submitted that the Chairman, Appellate Tribunal has incorrectly held that there was a concession and waiver of jurisdiction and, therefore, the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi-II (DRT-II), was legal and valid. Secondly, on merits, it is submitted that there were errors and mistakes and the respondent bank has charged exorbitant interest at 17.5% compounded monthly and penal interest @ 2%. Notice, dated 1st April, 2010, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, had quantified the amount payable as Rs 26,73,20,851.44. The account was treated as a non-performing asset w.e.f 31st March, 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner had made payment of Rs.4.48 crores. But the respondent bank in the OA, filed on 4.3.2011, had quantified the amount payable as Rs.25,41,14,536.00, which was an incorrect figure as it did not account for payment of Rs.4.48 crores.

(2.) As we perceive, the two questions/issues raised are interconnected. The petitioner, herein, had filed an application, under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, before Debt Recovery Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceedings i.e. the application under Section 17, the original proceedings (O.A for short) was initiated by the respondent bank. The petitioner in turn had filed W.P.(C) 7572/2011 before the Delhi High Court. Copy of the said writ petition, has not been placed on record by the petitioner but orders passed in the said writ petition are enclosed and available. Order dated 4th September, 2012, indicates that the issue and dispute raised related to the alleged outstanding amount and interest due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent bank. The petitioner had written letter dated 17th Sept. 2012, to the Assistant General Manager of the respondent bank, enclosing a proposal in form of a schedule of payment calculated on the non-performing asset (NPA, for short) amounting to Rs.26,70,88,620/-. This was the same figure of the outstanding amount mentioned in the notice dated 1.4.2010. It was proposed that the petitioner would pay simple interest @ 10% per annum on the aforesaid amount in 18 equal monthly instalments beginning 31st March, 2013 and ending 31st August, 2014. For the sake of completeness, we are reproducing the relevant paragraphs of the said letter:-

(3.) Thereafter, on 4th October, 2012, submission was made on behalf of the petitioner before the writ Court that they had already submitted a proposal to the respondent bank and were willing to pay interest @ 10% per annum. Though the petitioner had earlier asked for two years' time for repayment, but they were willing to reduce the time to one year and six months. The respondent bank had submitted that a settlement would be facilitated if the petitioner would meet their Assistant General Manager. The date and time of meeting was fixed. The order dated 4.10.2012, specifically noticed that the counsel for the petitioner had been shown the outstanding amount payable as 15.50 crores (approximately) and counsel for the petitioner had submitted that this figure provided by respondent bank was not correct and amount payable was much less.