M V SURESH REDDY Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION filed by the defendants under Order 14, rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 24, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to permit the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 13, 64, 500 and direct the plaintiff-bank to deliver the documents of title to them and pass appropriate orders by way of injunction as against the plaintiff from initiating parallel proceedings in the Debt Recovery Tribunal Chennai in respect of the alleged loan amount.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows : THE applicants are defendants in C.S. No. 361 of 1998. THEy commenced construction of a commercial building for the purpose of letting it out so that they would derive some decent rental income and in that process, the plaintiff-bank was interested in moving into the building to be constructed. THE applicants also sent the money by cheque for the purpose of discharging the entire loan together with interest. Having received the cheque, the bank kept quiet till the month of February/March, 1998, and returned the same staling that they are not interested in receiving the money. THEy had deposited with the bank the property documents pertaining the said premises by way of collateral security and wanted return of the same. However, the plaintiff-bank chose to return the said cheque and subsequently filed the present suit together with interlocutory application. THEy had lost considerable amount of money in the entire process and they have been put to severe financial constraint. THEy received a communication from the advocates of the plaintiff-bank, demanding a sum of Rs. 20, 47, 908. THEy had tendered the amount on December 10, 1997, to an extent of Rs. 13, 50, 000 but it was not accepted. THEy have calculated the interest to the bank up to December 31, 1997. THEre is no other liability for these applicants. It is not open to the plaintiff-bank once again to issue legal notice and ask for an amount for the identical period. Having failed to get any interlocutory relief before this court, it is possible that the plaintiff may be tempted to seek certain other interlocutory reliefs before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, interim injunction restraining the plaintiff from taking recourse as necessary to settle the matter in respect of the loan availed. THE repayment of the loan is without prejudice to the rights of these defendants to contest the suit and claim appropriate compensation and damages from the bank. Hence, the petition.THE respondent-bank filed a counter that if the applicants seek to redeem the mortgage, they should file an independent suit for redemption of the mortgage and not by any other petition. THEy were sanctioned loan with concession rate of interest as it was part of the contract that the petitioners will provide the suit premises to the respondent-bank to house its Kotturpuram Branch. After availing of the loan in full, the petitioners at the last minute committed breach of the assurance and attempted to induct a third party as a tenant. THE respondent-bank was constrained to move this court and obtained the order of status quo and also appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to submit the report. THE petitioners and the third party violated the order of this court and contempt petition was also filed for wilful disobedience. THEy are liable to repay the loan together with interest at the commercial rate With quarterly rests and the same works out to Rs. 21, 19, 638 as on September 30, 1999, with further interest. THE petitioners availed of the loan and created mortgage over the immovable property. Having taken illegal possession of the premises in question, they cannot plead that they are entitled to repay the loan with concessional rate of interest. THE respondent-bank has sought mandatory in junction and alternatively direct the petitioners to pay interest at the commercial rate. If the petitioners do not deposit the entire claim at the commercial rate, they have no other go except to seek legal redress. THE bank is prepared to accept the same without prejudice to its right to proceed with the relief sought for. In any event, the returning of the cheque by the bank cannot be put against it. THE bank is even now prepared to take on lease the suit property on the admitted terms and conditions. THE petitioners are liable to pay Rs. 21, 19, 638 as on September 30, 1999, with further interest. THE reliefs claimed in this application are outside the realm of the relief claimed in the suit. THE petitioners cannot seek the relief of injunction to restrain the bank from proceeding with the right to recover their legitimate dues in accordance with law.Heard learned counsel of both the sides.