Radha Khanna vs HDFC Bank Ltd.

Ranjit Singh, J

This appeal was disposed of by this Tribunal on 21.12.2010 when the counsel for the appellant/applicant made a statement expressing his client's readiness to pay an amount of Rs. 86,10,404/- together with pendente lite and future interest @10% simple on the reducing balance from 11.9.2007. The appellant was to make the payment by 31.3.2011. As per the statement, a sum of Rs. 42 lac had been deposited. This was ordered to be adjusted subject to verification. The order dated 21.12.2010 containing the statement and the order disposing of the appeal reads as under:--

"Counsel for the parties present. An agreement has been arrived at between the parties. Let the statement of the appellant be recorded.

Statement of Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate without SA.

My client will pay Rs. 86,109,404/- together with pendent lite and future interest @ 10% simple on the reducing balance from 11th September 2007. The payment will be made by 31.3.2011. The appellant stated that it has already deposited Rs. 42 lakhs subject to verification and the said amount which has already been deposited will be adjusted towards this amount.

Sd/-

(S.L. Gupta)

Advocate

Sd/-

(Chairperson)

Order

However, if there is default, the time will further extend by 60 days. It is made clear even after the expiry of period of 60 days or there is any other default prior to that as well, the Respondent will be at liberty to proceed under the SARFAESI Act, It is also made clear that after the entire payment is received by the Respondent Bank, the Bank will return the documents and will issue a No Dues certificate within 10 days after receipt of the entire dues. Bank is further directed to file latest statement of accounts as also as per my order.

The matter stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(CHAIRPERSON)

Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and another copy be dispatched to the Ld. DRT forthwith.

Sd/-

(CHAIRPERSON)"

Subsequently, an application was filed by the bank, which was taken up for hearing on 26.4.2011. Pointing out that the appellants had not complied with the order dated 21.12.2010, the bank had sought permission to proceed against the property in question. This Tribunal permitted the bank to proceed further in accordance with law.

The appellants, thereafter, filed an application (No. 396/2011) seeking acceptance of the calculations made by the appellants and for directing the respondent bank to file original documents of title to deliver it to the appellants on payment of certain amount by the appellants, On this day, the counsel for the applicant/appellant had tendered a draft of Rs. 25 lacs. The same was handed over to the counsel for the bank. There was some dispute regarding receipt of an amount of Rs. 6 lac. That application was adjourned for reply and argument. Subsequently, both the counsel filed the statements of account. Certain directions also came to be passed for filing complete and full statement of account and the matter has been getting adjourned from time to time.

An issue also arose whether the calculation sheet of the outstanding amount given by the respondent includes interest over interest on reducing balance basis. The counsel for the bank had prayed for time to call the concerned officer to demonstrate the same Officer of the bank appeared and explained the method of calculation of interest but since both the counsel were not present on that day the case had to be adjourned.

Certain orders came to be passed on various dates thereafter. The counsel for the appellants showed his readiness to make the payment of the outstanding dues. Counsel for the bank pointed out that the appellants had taken two other loans against the same property which had not been repaid and so the bank was hesitant in returning the title deeds.

On 4.10.2012, it was pointed to the counsel for the appellants that the appellants had agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 86,10,404/- together with pendente lite and future interest @10.5 simple on the reducing balance from 11.9.2007 and the payment was to be made by 31.3.2011. The counsel for the bank had pointed out that an amount of more than Rs. 43 lac was still to be paid by the appellants. According to the counsel for the appellants, the amount due was Rs. 28 lac. The appellants were directed to deposit Rs. 30 lac by 15.11.2012.

The appellants thereafter sought extension of time to deposit Rs. 30 lac. This Tribunal did not find any good reason to extend the time, but still allowed the appellants one more day to deposit the amount. On 19.11.2012, the counsel for the appellants came with a cheque of Rs. 5 lac. He was asked to deposit this amount by D.D.

He was allowed two weeks' more time to make deposit of the remaining amount of Rs. 25 lac. It was clarified that no further extension would be allowed to the appellants. In between, the appellants also approached the High Court, but their writ petition was dismissed with certain observations. Thereafter, a demand draft of Rs. 5 lac and a cheque of Rs. 25 lac were deposited with the Registrar.

The issue of amount due then again was raised and prayer was made to the bank to file an updated statement of account. The statement of account ultimately has now been filed where there is hardly any difference of any amount.

I have considered the submissions made before me. I am of the view that this case is unnecessarily being dragging on by the appellant/applicants. The question of amount due or payable would not arise in this case. It was on the submission made by the counsel for the appellant/applicants that they will deposit a specific amount which was mentioned in the statement itself. The interest payable was also recorded. The time was given is also noticed in the order. In this background, there would not be any dispute with regard to the amount which is payable. Since the amount was not paid in time, the bank was entitled to proceed against the property. The appellants have been able to stall the legal process on the basis of various applications filed and seeking extension of time to make deposit. It is not appropriate to go into the dispute as to how much amount is due as that would depend upon the order passed when the appeal was disposed of. The amount due can very much be calculated and further action taken thereon. In my considered opinion, application has been filed to pursue with this case which was disposed of in the year 2010, which apparently is misplaced and accordingly the same is dismissed.