Tejwant Singh vs Punjab And Sind Bank

Ranjit Singh, J

O.A. No. 205/1995 filed by Punjab and Sind Bank was decided on 13.10.2010. In the O.A. the Bank had claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 17.5% p.a. in respect of outstanding in LAP account and @ 19% p.a. in respect of outstanding in ODP account. The Bank had also sought a recovery certificate for the sum of Rs. 79,61,034/-, but filed a revised statement of account removing the capitalization effect and the claim amount was reduced to Rs. 72,85,883/-. The Tribunal still granted a sum of Rs. 79,61,034/- Alleging that these parts of the order would reveal a mistake or error apparent on the face of record, which may have happened through an oversight, the appellants herein filed an application seeking review of the impugned order dated 13.10.2010. When the review application was taken up for consideration, the appellants were confronted with the delay on their part in filing the said review application as the said application was filed on 26.9.2012 to seek review of order passed in 13.10.2010. To avoid the issue of limitation or avoid explaining delay, the Counsel for the appellants appearing before the Tribunal prayed that the review application filed for review of the order may be treated as an application under Section 152 of CPC. The Counsel also submitted that he will not pursue the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal below treated the said application as application filed under Section 152 of CPC and has gone ahead to dispose of the same accordingly.

The Tribunal has allowed this application partially and the final judgment dated 13.10.2010 and the R.C. issued pursuant thereto have been corrected to the extent that the amount to be recovered is Rs. 72,85,883/- instead of Rs. 79,61,034. The Tribunal, however, did not make any change in the rate of interest which was awarded in the impugned judgment. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal has been filed, in which notice has been issued and the respondent has put in appearance.

Mr. Bhandari, Counsel appearing for the appellant has made a very simple and straight forward prayer by urging that the prayer in regard to the interest made by the appellant Bank in the application as claimed be allowed. The Counsel would contend that no Tribunal would be in a position to grant prayer more than what is claimed by the Bank in its O.A. Mr. Bhandari states that if the interest as granted by the Tribunal is allowed to be claimed and charged in the manner, it will be exceeds the claim of the Bank as is claimed in the O.A. filed by the Bank.

Mr. Wali, Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, however, would state that the prayer made should not be read in isolation and as such has drawn my attention to the averments contained in para 32 of the O.A., where the interest claimed was at the rate mentioned with quarterly rests. Mr. Wali may be justified in so stating, but he could not dispute this fact that ultimately the prayer made by the Bank was for interest @ 17.5% p.a. in respect of outstanding in the LAP account and @ 19% p.a. in respect of outstanding in the ODP account from 27.9.1988 till the payment or realization.

The prayer contained in para 37(a) reads as under:

"37(a) that a money decree be passed against defendants Nos. 1 to 6 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs. 79,61,034/- together with further interest @ 17.5% p.a. in respect of the outstanding in the LAP account and at the rate of 19% p.a. in respect of the outstanding in the ODP Account, from 27.9.1988 till payment or realization."

According to the Counsel for the appellant no interest more than what is claimed could be allowed. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhandari has placed before me the judgment passed by the Tribunal below in M.A. No. 47/2008 in O.A. No. 75/2000, which order has been passed by the same P.O. In this case, DRT-II, Delhi, after discussion came to the conclusion that the operative part of the final order passed on 2.6.2006 in O.A. No. 75/2000 needed correction/modification to the extent as corrected and accordingly passed an order to correct the operative portion of the final order. As per Mr. Bhandari, this order passed by the Tribunal while correcting or modifying the earlier judgment was upheld by this Tribunal vide its order dated 27.12.2012. Part of the relief granted earlier was not in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. This Tribunal, accordingly, found that no cause of grievance can be said to have accrued to the appellant who had challenged the order passed by the Tribunal below. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order. The High Court, while rejecting the contentions raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, has made some very pertinent observations, which are as under:

"We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in effect a review power has been exercised beyond time. All that the impugned order did was to correct the obvious arithmetical and clerical mistakes. The ends of justice required that such mistakes ought to be corrected. In fact, it is surprising that when a document did not affix the liability on the guarantors, yet as per the original certificate issued they were made liable. Fortunately on this aspect learned Counsel for the petitioner made no submissions."

As is noticed by the Hon'ble High Court, the real grievance of the petitioner was regarding compound interest which would be payable on the amount, as they may have purchased the debt on that basis. The Court has noticed that after having discussed the contractual documents, the prayer made was specific in terms seeking only simple interest. As is held by the Hon'ble Court, the prayer clause was never amended and the DRT could not have granted interest beyond the prayer made.

This legal position is not disputed by the Counsel appearing for the Bank. Since the Tribunal had intended to reduce the interest which, in fact, is not the result of the order, the appellant obviously sought correction of that part of the order which may make them to incur increased liability. Since the prayer now is to grant interest whatever is prayed by the Bank in the prayer clause, obviously the Bank cannot have any objection to the prayer made in the O.A. being granted. The Tribunal, in my view, became too technical while refusing to amend that part of the order. If the legal position is that the Tribunal could not have granted interest beyond the prayer made in the application, in my view, it would be appropriate to modify the order to bring it in tune with this legal position. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The recovery of the amount determined in the O.A. shall now be recoverable with costs and interest @ 17.5% per annum from 27.9.1988 till payment or realization thereof. The appellant is given 90 days' time as prayed to discharge the entire liability.