NARESH KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been remanded back to this Tribunal by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, vide order dated 12.1.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6729/2010, for examination as to how the rate of interest is established from the documents and also for considering the plea of the petitioner of reduced rate of pendente lite and future interest, especially in view of the deposits made by them. The circumstances of the case indicate that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had availed certain credit facilities from the respondent No. 1 Bank to which Joti Parshad Aggarwal and Naresh Kumar Aggarwal had stood sureties and Om Prakash Aggarwal, through his attorney Naresh Aggarwal, and Joti Parshad, mortgaged their property as collateral security. When the borrowers failed to repay the loan the respondent Bank filed suit No. 2061/1993 before the Delhi High Court against the borrowers, guarantors and mortgagors for the recovery of Rs. 35,54,814.27 together with cost and pendente lite and future interest at the contractual rate of 23.75% p.a. with quarterly rests. However, on coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the RDDBFI Act) the case was transferred to the DRT, Delhi where it was registered as O.A. No. 191/1995. As the defendants did not appear before the DRT despite service of notice, the OA proceeded ex parte against them and allowed as such for the recovery of the claimed amount with interest pendente lite and future @ 23.75% from the date of suit till its realization, vide order dated 11.3.1997.

(2.) MR . Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, the defendant No. 4 and one of the guarantors, filed application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 11.3.1997 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before the DRT, but the application was dismissed, vide order dated 18.1.1999. The said order along with ex parte order dated 11.3.1997 was assailed by him before the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 2181/1999]. During the pendency of that writ petition, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.2.2000 with the direction to the petitioner to file appeal before the DRAT, which was filed by him before the DRAT, Mumbai on 13.3.2000, wherefrom it was transferred to this Tribunal on 20.6.2000. The appeal was, however, dismissed by this Tribunal on 23.2.2001 for failure of pre -deposit of the amount under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act as well as for default.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, Mr. Raj Kumar Aggarwal assailed the above order before the Delhi High Court through W.P.(C) No. 6729/2010 and the Hon'ble Court while observing that (i) endeavour was made by the petitioner to settle the matter by submitting a proposal of Rs. 55 lacs to the Bank and by making payments of Rs. 30 lacs from time to time to it, which was recommended by the branch of the Bank but was turned down by its Head Office, (ii) the Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that neither the DRT nor the DRAT had examined the merit of the Bank's claim and the only controversy he sought to urge was the rate of interest which was not established as per the documents placed on record by the respondent Bank, (iii) the controversy qua the rate of interest is required to be examined by some forum by looking into the documents and to examine as to how the rate of interest is established as per those documents and also the plea of the petitioner of reduced rate of pendente lite and future interest especially in view of the deposits made by the petitioner is required to be considered, remanded the appeal back to this Tribunal for examination and consideration of the limited aspect of the matter, as aforesaid.