SURINDER PAL SINGH Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this writ petition is between the auction purchaser on one side and the principal borrower and its partner on the other side. The bone of contention is plot No.158A, New Kitchlu Nagar, Partap Singh Wala, near K.C. Marbles, Hambran Road, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as 'the plot in dispute'), which is the property furnished as security by the principal borrower i.e. respondent No.2 and the petitioner is the auction purchaser.

(2.) In the year 2008, the borrower took a loan of Rs. 48,00,000/- + cash credit limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- from respondent No.1-Bank. As stated above, the plot in dispute was mortgaged as security for the debt. The account was subsequently declared as Non Performing Account (N.P.A.) and a sale notice was also published. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his bid of Rs. 70,05,000/- for purchase of the plot in dispute on 8.3.2010. It appears that the sale took place during the pendency of S.A. No.221 of 2009 filed by the borrower, challenging the declaration of its account as NPA and the sale notice issued pursuant thereto. In fact, the said sale was effected under orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT-II'), which is apparent from order dated 13.2010 (Annexure P-1) placed on record by the petitioner. It further becomes apparent from the said order that the borrower was granted an opportunity to bring a better buyer. At the same time, the auction purchaser was granted liberty to make payment of the consideration offered by him. Thereafter, another opportunity was granted to the borrower to bring a better buyer as the borrower showed his bona fides by offering to pay an amount of Rs. 10 lacs by way of demand draft. Dispossession was also stayed. Meanwhile, sale certificate dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure P-3) was executed by respondent No.1-Bank in favour of the auction purchaser. This order was challenged by the borrower before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), New Delhi, by way of Miscellaneous Appeal No.192 of 2010 wherein he offered to redeem the mortgaged property by payment of the entire amount due from him. The DRAT relegated the borrower to the DRT-II, Chandigarh for raising the said issue. Consequently, as recorded in order dated 5.5.2010 (Annexure P-6), the borrower paid a sum of Rs. 63,08,169/- (amount mentioned in notice dated 27.4.2009 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act') by way of demand draft before the DRT-II, Chandigarh. This amount was directed to be kept in an interest bearing 'No Lien Account' and the auction purchaser was granted liberty of filing objections. Pursuant to objections filed by the auction purchaser, the Securitization Application filed by the borrower was dismissed vide order dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure P-9). The result was that the sale in favour of the auction purchaser stood confirmed.

(3.) The order dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure P-9) was challenged by way of CWP No. 18056 of 2010 by the borrower but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.9.2011 (Annexure P-11) by relegating the borrower to seek his remedy by way of an appeal. The appeal filed by the borrower was dismissed vide order dated 19.2.2013 (Annexure P-12) on account of delay and that there was no power with the DRAT to condone the delay. This order was set aside by this Court in CWP No.6619 of 2013 (Annexure P-13) and the matter was remitted to the DRAT with a direction to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh. Consequently, the DRAT condoned the delay and allowed the appeal vide order dated 10.4.2015 (Annexure P-15). It was held that the borrower had legally redeemed the mortgage and was only liable to pay interest on the amount paid by him. The issue of payment of interest was put to challenge by the borrower in CWP No.19656 of 2015 dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure P-16), which was disposed of by directing the borrower to first raise his grievance before the DRAT. The DRAT rejected the application filed by the borrower in this regard vide order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P-18) which was challenged by the borrower in CWP No. 27615 of 2015. During the pendency of this writ petition, communication dated 11.7.2015 issued by respondent No.1-Bank asking the borrower to pay Rs. 41,78,309.66 towards interest was withdrawn and an undertaking was made to submit fresh calculations. Accordingly, order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure P-18) passed by the DRAT was set aside and the matter was remanded once again to the DRAT. Thereafter, respondent No.1-Bank recalculated the interest due and reduced the same to Rs. 17,13,062/-. The borrower disputed this amount and came up with a figure of Rs. 10,05,061/-, out of which Rs. 6,05,419/- had already been paid and thus, the borrower alleged that it was liable to pay only Rs. 3,99,642/-. Thereafter, the Bank further reduced the interest component to Rs. 15,76,818/-. The DRAT, in its order dated 24.2017, directed the borrower to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 4.00 lacs towards full and final interest liability and put the matter to rest. It is not in dispute that the said amount of Rs. 4.00 lacs has also been paid by the borrower.