Vikram Singh vs Bank Of India And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

O.A. filed by the Bank and S.A. filed by the appellant have been disposed of by a common order. While dismissing the S.A. filed by the appellant, the O.A. filed by the Bank has been allowed holding the Bank entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 28,80,511/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 15% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the O.A. till realization. In the event of appellant-failing to pay the determined amount within 30 days, the Bank is held entitled to recover and realize the amount by sale of the mortgaged property i.e. F-572-A, Lado Sarai, New Delhi. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant has filed the present appeals. Even on the first date of hearing, prayer by the Counsel for the appellant was to seek some concession in the rate of interest. The appellant otherwise was ready and willing to pay the amount.

Notice was issued. On 26th November, 2015, Counsel for the Appellant voluntarily undertook to deposit 25% of the determined amount. Service has been effected on the Bank. Respondent No. 2, however, has not yet been served.

Respondent No. 2 is, in fact, the wife of the appellant and, therefore has been impleaded as a proforma party. For adjudicating the issue raised in the present appeals which is only concerning the concession in the rate of interest, the presence of respondent No. 2 may not be considered necessary or essential. She is otherwise impleaded as proforma respondent.

Mr. Sharma appearing for the appellant states that interest granted by the Tribunal below is highly excessive and the Tribunal below has not even considered the prayer for some concession in the rate of interest for the period pendente lite. Prayer of the Counsel is to reduce the rate of interest to 10/11% giving six months time to the appellant to discharge the liability.

Counsel for the respondent Bank has opposed this prayer. The Counsel submits that the appellant did not make any payment voluntarily during the pendency of the O.A. as well as S.A. He had deposited Rs. 6 lacs only once the Tribunal required him to do so while granting interim protection. The Counsel for the respondent Bank would also submit that the appellant has not deposited 25% of the determined amount as he has only deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lacs which would not be 25% of the determined amount.

In response, Mr. Sharma would point out that a sum of Rs. 6 lacs was deposited earlier under the direction of the Tribunal below and another sum of Rs. 2 lacs has now been deposited making total deposit of Rs. 8 lacs which is more than 25% of the determined principal amount of Rs. 28.80 lacs. Since the appellant has pleaded for some concession in the rate of interest, which is relief against the order passed in the O.A., the deposit of Rs. 8 lacs after notice is considered sufficient to maintain the appeals, which is more than 25% of the principal determined amount. The appeals are' accordingly held maintainable and on being numbered, these are taken for hearing with the concurrence of Counsel for the parties.

I have considered the submissions made before me. In view of present financial scenario, interest at the rate of 15% p.a. with monthly rests may appear to be on higher side. Counsel for the respondent Bank would submit that this was the contractual rate of interest. The Bank has claimed this amount at the time of filing of the O.A. by calculating interest as per the contractual rates. Grant of interest pendente lite and for subsequent period is, to an extent, in the discretion of the Court or Tribunal. of course, this discretion has to be exercised judiciously and cannot be arbitrarily exercised. The appellant has volunteered to deposit the amount determined. He has not contested the order on merits. Since the appellant has shown willingness to discharge the liability, I am of the view that some concession in the rate of interest may be called for in this case. I am not inclined to reduce the rate of interest to 10/11% p.a. being less. It is considered that interest @ 13% p.a. simple would meet the ends of justice provided the appellant is ready to make the full payment within four months from the date of this order.

The Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is ready to discharge the entire liability in two installments within four months. Appellant is directed to discharge the entire determined liability within a period of four months with interest @ 13% p.a. simple. First installment shall be paid within two months from today and thereafter second installment shall be discharged before expiry of four months. In case of default, even of first installment, interest allowed by the Tribunal below shall stand revived and the concession allowed by this Tribunal shall stand withdrawn. The present appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.