AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the Bank as well as the private respondents.
The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the learned single Judge, who has exonerated the private respondent
from making further payments of outstanding dues against the loan granted by the Bank and which became NPA.
From a reading of the narration of facts of the impugned order, it seems that a SARFAESI proceeding was initiated for non- payment of the
outstanding dues, which culminated into an order on 21.02.2013 passed in S.A. No. 211 of 2012 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The final
outstanding worked out for settlement of the outstanding dues was fixed as Rs.24,10,587.00. The bank had also waived off an amount of almost Rs.
Ten lakhs and odd as part of the final settlement. The direction passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal was to pay the total amount in three equal
installments within a period of three months.
Admitted position is that after the initial payment of a token amount of Rs. Five lakhs on 22.03.2013 and then Rs. Three lakhs on 09.04.2013, the
balance amount of the outstanding dues was not settled by the private respondent. The major payment finally was made after almost three years on
17.03.2016.
Since there was a delay of more than three years and the private respondent did not honour the direction and the order passed by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal by adhering to the time frame, the Bank has now objected to the order passed by the learned single Judge by showing that the interest
component, which has accumulated over the period of time due to non- settlement of the total outstanding dues, cannot be wished away or waived by
the learned single Judge by taking a view that since a sum of Rs.24,30,000.00 has already been paid and the Bank accepted the said amount without
any demur, therefore, the account should stand closed and satisfied.
The learned counsel representing the Bank is correct in making his submission and objection against the impugned order on the ground that the private
respondent cannot draw advantage of his own wrong if he did not close the account by making payments within the time frame fixed by the DRT and
the settlement if at all of the fixed amount by the DRT was made after more than three years of passing of the order, the interest component, which
accumulated in the meantime, cannot be wished away.
We are of the view that the Bank cannot refuse any payment which is made by a loanee of outstanding amount, they have obligation to receive the
said amount as and when it is paid by a loanee. But merely because they have not specifically said that it is a final settlement against the outstanding
dues, it does not mean that the interest component and liability of the loanee to pay for delayed payment for almost three years cannot be saddled upon
him.
To that extent the learned single Judge seems to be in error by waiving or directing the Bank to issue the No Dues Certificate on the basis of payment
of Rs.24,30,000.00 despite a delay of more than three years, was unwarranted. The impugned order dated 22.07.2016 to that extent is quashed. The
appeal is allowed.
As a consequence of the above order, the order of quashing of O.A. No.410 of 2015 by the learned single Judge stands set aside.
An oral prayer was made for grant of certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India, we are of the opinion that no significant question of
law arises for which a certificate as prayed for is required to be granted. The prayer is refused.