IDBI Bank Ltd. vs Balaji Lifters

Ranjit Singh, J

The respondent herein had earlier filed Misc. Appeal No. 367 of 2014 when on his willingness to clear the dues, the Tribunal below had directed him to deposit Rs. 1 crore to show his bona fides. This appeal was disposed of by this Tribunal on December 30, 2014 with a liberty to the appellant, respondent herein, to raise his plea once he had shown his readiness and willingness to discharge the entire liability. Out of the notice amount of Rs. 1,83,23,067/-, the respondent had claimed to have deposited a sum of Rs. 1.48 crore. The Counsel for the Bank had conceded that a sum of Rs. 1.45 crore stood deposited. Now, the Tribunal has disposed of the SA directing the respondent to clear the balance dues of the Bank (less than the amount already deposited) along with interest @ 11% p.a. simple on reducing balance basis from the date of NPA till realization. The respondent has been asked to deposit the remaining amount so calculated with interest as allowed through five equal monthly instalments. Aggrieved against this order, the Bank has filed the present appeal.

The Counsel would submit that the indulgence shown by the Tribunal by reducing the rate of interest at least from the period of NPA till the date of filing the SA is not just and fair. The Counsel would further contend that the observation recorded by the Tribunal below that the respondent is an indigent concern is contradictory to the position emerging from record. If it had been so, the respondent could not have been in a position to clear the dues of the Bank which he has undertaken to do.

In my view, the Counsel has unnecessarily made an issue about the observation recorded by the Tribunal below which apparently has casually made a mention to the peculiar circumstances which are also termed as indigent as well. Intention was not to reflect that the respondent is indigent concern. The Tribunal has just stated that keeping in view the indigent peculiar circumstances of the case, it was reducing the rate of interest to 11% simple by following the law laid down in the case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors., I (2002) BC 150 (SC) : VII (2001) SLT 400 : IV (2001) CLT 127 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 3095. The Tribunal while passing this order has further observed that in case the respondent is unable to clear the dues in time so provided, the Bank would be entitled to claim interest as per the agreed rate. Except for challenging the rate of interest allowed, no contention otherwise is advanced before me to challenge the order. There is no challenge to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reduce the rate of interest which the Tribunal has. The peculiar circumstance in this case apparently is that a substantial amount after the notice has been paid. The action of the Tribunal in permitting the respondent to make the balance payment in time bound manner which would be with interest, as allowed, is fair, just and reasonable. If the respondent is unable to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal, the Bank has the liberty to continue with proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in accordance with law and would also be entitled to charge interest as was agreed.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.