JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Issue notice. Sh. Rajendra Singhvi, Advocate accepts notice; Shri N.K. Kaul, learned senior counsel appears on his behalf. The Court heard the counsel for parties finally. The petitioner-bank (hereafter "the bank") is aggrieved by an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereafter "the DRAT") allowing an appeal preferred by the respondent (hereafter "the judgment debtor").
(2.)The brief facts are that the bank had initiated proceedings, being Suit No. 2509/1998 before this Court claiming a decree for Rs. 79,61,034/-; the judgment debtors were arrayed as defendants. The suit claimed future interest @ 17.5% in respect of the outstanding in the LAP account and 19% per annum in respect of the outstanding in the ODP account with effect from 27.09.1988. The claim in the suit inter alia was as follows:
"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
(a) that a money decree be passed against defendants Nos. 1 to 6 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.79,61,034/- together with further interest @ 17.5% p.a. in respect of the outstanding in LAP account and at the rate of 19% p.a. in respect of the outstanding in the ODP account, from 27.09.1988 till payment or realization.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"
(3.)During the pendency of the suit, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was brought into force; consequently the proceedings was transferred to the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and registered as OA 205/1995. The DRT, after considering the materials and documents on the record and submissions of parties, held that the bank had proved its claim and decreed it in full. So far as the interest was concerned, the relevant part of the DRT's order reads as follows:
"XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
26. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank that the applicant bank is entitled to the issue of recovery certificate against the defendants for the sum of Rs.79,61,034/- with further interest thereon @ 17.5% p.a. on the LAP account and 19% p.a. on the ODP account with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 27.9.1988. The statement filed by the Bank claiming the said amount has been filed as Exhibit PW4/2. It is well proved under the provisions of Bankers Books of Evidence Act. The defendants have not produced any evidence whatsoever to contradict the presumption in favour of the entries in the certified statement of account.
27. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case PNB Vs. Rinkoo Plastics Industries and Others, 2002 63 DRJ 238 it is held that the claim of the Bank is liable to be allowed together with interest. However, the Bank has claimed interest @ 17.5 % p.a. on LAP and 19% of ODP account on the claimed amount. Sub- Section 20 of Section 19 empowers the Tribunal to grant interest at such rate as it deems fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion the rate of interest claimed by the Bank as per loan agreement is on higher side. In the recent past on account of global conditions the interest in the open market has considerably gone down. Though I do not deem fit it appropriate [sic] to interfere in the pre suit interest, however, in so far as the pendent lite and future interest is concerned having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case I deem fit it [sic] to award interest @ 15.5% p.a. with quarterly compounded rests on the entire amount claimed.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
ORDER
30. The OA is allowed for recovery of a sum of Rs.7961034/- together with costs and interest @ 15.5% p.a. with quarterly compounded rests from the date of filing of this suit until actual realization of the entire amount. The liability of the defendants No.1 to 6 shall be joint and several to repay this amount. They are directed to pay the amount within 90 days."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.