AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.M. Malik, J
This order shall decide both the above mentioned two appeals.
Counsel for the parties present. The appeals are heard finally as Counsel for the respondents in each case do not want to file counter affidavits. Counsel for the borrowers/respondents is present along with Mr. S.K. Bhatia, Director, M/s Akashdeep Housing Development Finance Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 1.
Notice under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act was issued on 12.8.2008 wherein a demand in the sum of Rs. 1,07,94,053/- as on 30.6.2008 was raised. It is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents/borrowers that the respondents deposited a sum of Rs. 87,84,000/- as is evident from the letter written by the respondents on 21.3.2011. Counsel for the respondents further submits that, thereafter, the respondents have further deposited Rs. 6,05,000/- in July 2009 and Rs. 19,35,834/- on 21.3.2011. Apart from this a sum of Rs. 10 lacs is lying with the DRT. As agreed, the Bank is directed to get the same amount from the learned DRT and appropriate it and adjust the same towards the loan in question.
Respondents are liable to pay interest w.e.f. 1.7.2008. Counsel for the respondents submits that contractual rate of interest @ 13.5% p.a. with monthly rests is on the higher side and excessive. On the other hand, Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to get the contractual rate of interest as it is a commercial transaction.
I find force in the arguments urged by both the Counsel to some extent. In the"cases reported in State Bank of India v. Sarathi Textiles & Ors., II (2009) BC 696 = 2008 (3) SCALE 409, C.K. Sasankan v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., : I (2009) CLT 368 (SC) : I (2011) BC 122 (SC) : II (2009) SLT 449 : 2009 (2) D.R.T.C. 320 (S.C.) and Sardar Associates and Others v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Others, : VI (2009) SLT 473 : III (2009) BC 705 (SC) : III (2009) CLT 186 (SC) : AIR 2010 SC 218 it was held that it is the discretion of the Court to award the pendente lite and future interest which has to be exercised fairly. Section 19(20) of the DRT Act runs as follows:
19(20). The Tribunal may, after giving the applicant and the defendant an opportunity of being heard, pass such interim or final order, including the order for payment of interest from the date on or before which payment of the amount is found due up to the date of realization or actual payment, on the application as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice.
No rate of interest under the circumstances can be made a rule of thumb.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and that the debt was obtained for commercial purposes I hereby order that the respondents would be liable to pay simple interest @ 14% p.a. from 1.7.2008 till the realisation of the full amount on reducing balance basis.
Counsel for the appellant further submits that costs of the case should be awarded in his favour. I accordingly award costs of the case which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. It is made clear that the appellant would furnish a copy of the statement of accounts with the Registrar of this Court within seven days and the respondent may pay the entire amount within two months thereafter. Till the entire amount is paid, the appellant will not release the title deeds. Title deeds be released only after the entire amount is received by the Bank. After receipt of the entire amount as perthis order, the Bank will release the title deeds and issue no due certificate in favour of the respondents within four days. Order of this Court be complied with strictly by both the parties.
In the second appeal the Counsel for the appellant submits that the land in dispute was an agricultural land. Respondents have already since then obtained a change in land use (in short CLU) and are using the same for non-agricultural purposes for constructing a 'resort' and respondents have already entered into an agreement to sell it on 17.11.2008 and as per the agreement they have already handed over the physical possession to the purchaser namely M/s. Mccoy Hotel and Resort. It is also pointed out that the alleged dispute between seller and purchaser is pending before theCivil Court, Rohtak. Counsel for the appellant submits that this is a disputed property. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents insists that possession is still with them and the above said agreement has been fabricated. The change of land use was within the knowledge of the Bank even at the time of sanction of the loan as such the stay order dated 3.5.2011 was obtained on making a wrong statement.
Whatever the case may be it is made clear that the documents will not be released till the entire loan is paid.
Both the appeals stand disposed of.
Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and one copy be sent to the learned DRT forthwith.