HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HUDCO) Vs. LD. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the factual matrix and the questions of law involved in aforesaid two writ petitions are common and they assail common judgments/orders of DRT and DRAT, these are being disposed of by this single judgment. For facility of reference, the facts are noticed from CWP -14090 -2011. A loan was sought by respondent No. 3 from the petitioner/HUDCO of Rs. 120.00 lacs on 18.5.1995 for construction of 28 dwelling units under Vista Valley Project at Shimla. The loan was sanctioned with the remaining private respondents standing guarantee executed on 5.5.1996 and a loan agreement was executed on 5.8.1996 (Annexure P -4). The loan is stated to have been enhanced to Rs. 140.00 lacs after release of initial instalments and the name of respondent No. 3 was also changed from its original name. It is the case of the petitioner that despite disbursement of three instalments, the private respondents failed to clear the dues and the loan was recalled by the notice dated 23.8.1999 and the recovery proceedings were filed before the DRT for a sum of Rs.1,38,02,317.00 along with interest at 20.5% per annum and penal interest of 2.5% per annum.

(2.) THE private respondents contested the claim and, in fact, filed a counter -claim of Rs. 682.12 lacs. The principal grievance made was that despite the agreement inter se the parties, the petitioner failed to release the sanctioned loan amount in time leading to grave loss to the project. Even the three instalments released were stated to have been inordinately delayed which stalled the work.

(3.) BOTH the parties filed their cross appeals before the DRAT and these appeals have been decided by a common judgment dated 28.10.2010. The DRAT took note of the delays in making the payment of first two instalments and thereafter the revision of the loan where the instalments were re -scheduled as per the actual date of disbursement of the first two instalments. The one crucial element referred to by both the counsel for the parties was the letter of offer dated 5.12.1995 which contained the following clauses: