PRADEEP GAMBHIR Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal impugns the order dated 27,9.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT -III, Delhi in Appeal No. 16/2010 directing the appellants to make payment as per the recovery certificate (R.C. No. 53/2006) issued in pursuance to the order dated 21.9.2006 of the Tribunal. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondent -Bank had filed an application (O.A. No. 108/2002) before the DRT below under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the RDDBFI Act) against the appellants for the recovery of Rs. 4,11,23,065.69 along with costs and pendente lite and future interest. The O.A. was allowed ex parte, vide order dated 21.9.2006, which was assailed in appeal before this Tribunal along with application for waiver of pre -deposit required under Section 21 of the said Act. This Tribunal, vide order dated 14.3.2007, rejecting the waiver application of the appellants, directed them to deposit 75% of the amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal below, for entertaining the appeal. The appeal was not entertained as the amount was not deposited, as ordered.

(2.) THE appellants, however, filed Writ Petition No. WP(C) No. 2939/2007 against the order of this Tribunal before the Delhi High Court. During the course of hearing of that petition, on 19.12.2007, the petitioner/appellants and the respondent -Bank agreed to settle the matter and it was agreed that a total amount payable as on 1.10.2000, as NPA, would be Rs. 3,17.36,403/ -. On this amount, the petitioners agreed to pay interest at PLR prevailing from time -to -time and they were allowed adjustment of the amounts made thereafter. The petitioner/appellants were to pay the entire amount by 31.3.2008 and in case the amount could not be paid by that date, they were allowed two months' time up to 31.5.2008 and for that period they agreed to pay interest w.e.f. 1.4.2008 @14% per annum or PLR, whichever was higher. The Hon'ble Court disposed of the petition accordingly. The appellants, however, neither paid the agreed amount to the respondent -Bank within the agreed period nor within the extended period allowed by the High Court by order dated 2.7.2008.

(3.) MR . Gautam Gambhir, appellant No. 3, arguing the appeal in person for the appellants, contended that the appellants had always tried to amicably settle the dispute with the Bank and out of seven loan accounts, six had been so settled and the due amount qua those accounts had been paid. He further submitted that he had settled the present loan account also before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 19.12.2007, but as he did not succeed in selling any of his properties, he could not make the payment to the Bank as per term of the said settlement. He also submitted that even thereafter he made several settlement proposals through letters improving upon earlier offers, but all those offers were declined by the Bank, however, in reply to his proposal dated 18.4.2010 for Rs. 497 lacs, the Bank, though declining the proposal, yet by letter dated 2.8.2010 had expressed the view of its High Level Settlement Advisory Committee that the appellants should have honoured the settlement earlier approved by the competent authority as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with delayed period interest and it was also suggested that if the appellant was still interested in pursuing the settlement proposal then he should deposit Rs. 50 lacs as upfront payment to show his bona fide. Mr. Gambhir submitted that he had conveyed his acceptance to that offer by letter dated 14.8.2010 and deposited Rs. 50 lacs, though not in one lump sum. He further submitted that he is still ready to pay the outstanding amount as per order dated 19.12.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court, along with interest @ 14% per annum or at PLR, whichever is higher or as per offer dated 2.8.2010 of the respondent -Bank. It has been pointed out by him that he has already deposited about Rs. 2.92 crores till date.