Parry Mouldings And Ors. vs Punjab & Sind Bank

Ranjit Singh, J

This Appeal No. 157/2006 arising out of an order passed in O.A. No. 410/99 was disposed of by this Tribunal on 7.7.2011. Counsel for the appellants had submitted before this Tribunal that the appellants would pay the rest of the decretal amount in equal installments within 12 months. The first such installment was payable on 7.8.2011 and the remaining installments were to be paid on 7th day of each succeeding English Calendar month. On payment of the entire amount, No Dues Certificate was to be issued and the title deeds were to be returned by the Bank. This Tribunal had, further directed that in case of default of even a single installment, the Bank would be at liberty to proceed and take action against the appellants as per law. The appellants have now filed a miscellaneous case (No. 533/2013) seeking direction to the respondent Bank to release the title documents of the property. Applicants would contend that even after the deposit of the entire decretal amount, the Bank is not releasing their title documents.

This Tribunal issued notice to the respondent Bank. The Counsel for the Bank appeared and prayed for time to file reply and that is how this matter is listed for arguments.

The grievance of the appellants/applicants is that the Counsel for the respondent Bank had unconditionally accepted the order passed by this Tribunal on 7.7.2011 and pursuant thereto the appellants have deposited the entire amount of Rs. 72,16,863/-. Having received this amount respondent Bank has moved a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal below, seeking amendment in the recovery certificate, claiming interest @ 18.75% p.a. with quarterly rests. This has led to the appellants filing the present application.

The applicant-appellants would plead that the respondent Bank had never challenged the final order passed by this Tribunal nor had it sought any clarification in this regard. The appellants had deposited the entire amount and now respondent Bank is not releasing the title documents.

The Bank has filed reply wherein it has been pleaded that the appellants had agreed before this Tribunal to pay the entire decretal amount, as is reflected in the order dated 7.7.2011. It is stated that the Tribunal below while allowing the O.A. had allowed pendente lite and future interest @ 18.75% p.a. with quarterly rests in respect of Inland Letter of Credit facility and 14.75% p.a. with quarterly rests in respect of Industrial Plot Loan facility. The plea is that if the appellant had paid the decretal amount within a period of three months, then the pendente lite and future interest as charged would have been 10% p.a. Since the appellants did not pay the decretal amount within a period of three months, pendente lite and future interest payable would be 18.75% p.a. with quarterly rests in respect of Inland Letter of Credit facility and @ 14.75%, p.a. with quarterly rests in respect of Industrial Plot Loan facility, and not 10% p.a. The Bank would also contest the advantage the appellant seeks to obtain by the use of expression decretal amount in order dated 7.7.2011. The Bank would also challenge the recovery certificate by terming it as ex facie erroneous. The Bank would plead that the order dated 7.7.2011 did not modify the order dated 17.10.2005 passed by the Tribunal below. Accordingly, the claim made by the Bank is justified by the Counsel.

Heard the Counsel for the parties. The order dated 7.7.2011 does not appear to be ambiguous in any manner. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal below, after taking stock of the circumstances and considering the rate of interest as claimed has allowed the pendente lite and future interest @10% p.a. in case of decretal amount was paid within three months. The Bank was held entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 27,87,123.72 in Inland Letter of Credit account and Rs. 1,34,532/- in Industrial Plot Loan Account facility with pendente lite and future interest @10% p.a. in both the accounts from the date of filing of the O.A. The operative part of the order dated 17.10.2005 in this regard reads as under :

"22. This OA is accordingly decided in favour of the applicant Bank and against the defendants jointly and severally for the amount of Rs. 27,87,123.72 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred Twenty Three and Seventy Two Paisa only) in Inland Letter of Credit Account and for a sum of Rs. 1,34,532.00 (Rupees 1 Lac Thirty Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Two only) in Industrial Plot Loan Account along with pendente lite and future interest @10% p.a. in both the accounts from the date of filing of O.A. The cost of litigation be also borne by the defendants. The defendants are directed to pay the above amounts within two months from the date of this order failing which the same shall be recovered from the mortgaged properties i.e. WZ-6-7, Raja Garden, Delhi hypothecated assets and other personal properties of the defendants or as per the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer for execution."

From the portion of the order reproduced above, it is clear that the Tribunal below had allowed interest only @ 10% p.a. in both the accounts while allowing the O.A. though in earlier part of the order it was recorded that the pendente lite and future interest would be @10% p.a. if the decretal amount was paid within three months. No such condition was imposed while giving directions in the operative part of the order. Rather, in case the appellants failed to pay the amount within two months, the same was ordered to be recovered from the mortgaged property. The order nowhere specifies or indicates that in case the payment is not made in two months or three months as stated, the interest would be charged as was contracted. The stand taken by the Bank in the reply to decline the prayer to return the title documents despite having received full decretal amount as per the decree passed does not appear to be justified. The miscellaneous case filed by the appellants, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The Bank is directed to return all the title documents to the appellants within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.