Delhi District Court
The National Small Industries ... vs M/S Maharana Electronics on 19 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARISH KUMAR : ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE 13 : CENTRAL DISTRICT ; TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
SUIT NO. 251/16
Unique ID No.02401C05019382004
In re :
The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
A company incorporated under the
Indian Companies Act, 1913
having its Registered Office at Industrial Estate,
Okhla, New Delhi.
......Plaintiff
versus
1. M/s Maharana Electronics
27, New Wazirpur Industrial Complex,
Delhi110052.
2. Sh. Tarlochan Singh Rana
S/o Late Sarup Singh Rana
Proprietor
M/s Maharana Electronics
27, New Wazirpur Industrial Complex,
Delhi110052.
......Defendants
Date of institution of present suit : 24.11.1995
Date of receiving in this court : 02.03.2016
Date of hearing arguments : 04.05.2016
Date of Judgment : 19.05.2016
Suit for Recovery of Rs.12,16,889/ being the Arrears of
Installments and Residual Value of the Machines as per Hire
Purchase Agreements dated 25.07.1985 and 19.02.1987 and for
Possession of the Machinery
Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 1 of 20
JUDGMENT
This judgment will decide the case filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for recovery of Rs 12,16,889/ being arrears of Installments and residual value of the machines as per hire and purchase agreements dt 25.07.1985 and 19.02.1987 and for possession of the machinery.
Brief facts as set out in the pleadings are as under:
1. Plaintiff a Government company being engaged in supplying machinery on hirepurchase basis to entrepreneurs thereby encouraging growth of industry, was approached by Defendants No.2 as proprietor of Defendant No.1 with a request for extending to them the hire purchase facility under its scheme to help small scale industries and entrepreneurs.
2. All the rules and regulation and repayments schedule of hirepurchase scheme was explained to the Defendants to which they shown keen interest and after due consideration Plaintiff company accepted the Defendants application and a Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the Plaintiff and the defendants on 5.07.1985 for supply of a Blow Moulding Machine for a sum of Rs.
2,08,094/. The said hire purchase amount was to be repaid in 13 installments and the first installments of Rs 22,388/including insurance amount was payable on 1.11.1986 and the second installments amounting to Rs 14,470/ was due on 1.5.1987 and subsequent 11 installments were due in May and November of every year.
3. Subsequently, another agreement was executed between Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 2 of 20 the parties on 19.02.1987 for supply of a Windsor Model SP130 Injection Moulding Machine for a total hire purchase value of Rs 8,87,133/. The second hire purchase amount was to be repaid in 13 installments and the first installments of Rs 95,445/including insurance amount was payable on 1.07.1986 and the second installments amounting to Rs 61,713/ was due on 1.1.1987 and subsequent 11 installments were due in January and July of every year.
4. According to Hire Purchase Agreements, Plaintiff placed order for the machinery with M/s R.H.Windsor (India) Ltd, Thane (Maharashtra), a supplier of Defendants' choice. Windsor Model SP 130 Injection Moulding Machine complete with standard accessories was supplied on 25.06.1985 and the Blow Moulding Machine was supplied to the Defendants on 8.11.1985. Defendants initially paid only a paltry sum of Rs 10,000/ against the outstanding sum of Rs 1,00,000/.
5. The Officers of the Plaintiff company inspected the machinery in the factory of premises of the Defendants and found them working satisfactorily nor any complaint was made by the Defendants about the working of the machines within 15 days of the delivery of machines.
6. Defendants in his correspondence with the Plaintiff stated that he was entitled to all the concession and benefits of Nov 1984 riots in Delhi. The above said two machines were supplied to the Defendants after Nov 1984 riots and no damage or loss had come to the defendant on account of riots.
Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 3 of 20
7. After putting lots of effort to recover the amount of due installments, Plaintiff tried to seized due to the dilatory tactics of the Defendant. Plaintiff requested the Defendant to visit their office to sort out the problems, if any, but the Defendants never respondent and scuttled every attempt made by the Plaintiff. Defendants has been sending some amount by cheques but his bank used to return the same with the remarks "funds insufficient". As per account as on 31.12.1994, Defendants owes a sum of Rs 9,43,077/. Defendants issued notice dt 1.10.1994 to Defendants terminating the Hire Purchase Agreement dt 25.07.1985 and 19.02.1987. Defendants are liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum and interest on delayed payment as per HirePurchase Agreement would be 14% per annum. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover the residual value of the machine amounting to Rs 2,73,812/. Hence, the present suit for recovery of those amounts.
8. Notice of the suit was served upon the Defendants and defendants filed written statement thereby raising preliminary objection that suit is liable to be rejected being without cause of action; that the suit has been filed to harass the victims of riots of 1984 following assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. It has been submitted that Defendants' manufacturing unit of Electronic items under the name and style of M/s Maharana Electronics was totally burnt and looted, destroyed and the whole machinery and raw material was gutted in the fire including building. The Defendant suffered loss of Rs 26,00,000/ due to damages to the raw material, finished products, machinery and building. The Defendants were left with no source of livelihood and was on the road. The Government in Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 4 of 20 their efforts to rehabilitate 1984riot victims went by assessing damages to provide and to the effected persons. The Plaintiff with a view to rehabilitate the small Scale Units affected by riots during 31 st October to 11th November 1984 introduced Liberalized Schemes for supply of machines on Hire Purchase namely " Liberalized Scheme for supply of Machines on Hire Purchase basis to Rehabilitate Small Scale Units affected by Riots during 3st October to 11 th November, 1984". Defendants being riot victim applied for the supply of Moulding Machines to the Plaintiff's Office and the Plaintiff got signed certain documents from the defendants without disclosing their contents. It has been further submitted that on representation made by the riots effected person in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Court reduced the rate of interest and as per circular of Reserve Bank Of India, only one percent interest can be charged from the riots affected persons. Inspite of various letters and representation made by the Defendants to charge one percent interest, the Plaintiff are not at all bothered and they gave deaf ear to the request of the Defendants and have filed this present suit at the rate of 12% interest per annum, totally ignoring the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling and ignoring the Salient Features of Central Interest Subsidy Scheme (Revised) for November 1984 Riots Affected Borrowers. Defendants are not liable to pay the amount claimed by the Plaintiff and Plaintiff has violated the above said scheme and rulings. Defendant has also raised preliminary objection that suit has not been filed by duly authorized person and that Plaintiff is not incorporated company.
9. On merits, it has been submitted that Defendants was riot victim and was left with no livelihood and Plaintiff under the direction of Government of India and with a view to rehabilitate the small scale Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 5 of 20 units affected by riots during the aforesaid period introduced a scheme namely "Liberalized Scheme for supply of Machines on Hire Purchase basis to Rehabilitate Small Scale Units affected by Riots during 3st October to 11th November, 1984" and under the said scheme Plaintiff supplied the machines under Hire Purchase Scheme and as per Hon'ble Supreme Court and ruling and above quoted scheme Plaintiff company can charge only one percent interest and plaintiff failed to calculate interest at the rate of one percent. As for payments it has been replied that Defendants never declined to pay the legitimate dues calculated on the basis of one percent interest. It has been submitted that as par Plaintiff's own admission Defendants have paid a sum of Rs 5,06,624/ to the Plaintiff, although defendants have paid more.
10. Plaintiff filed replication denied every submission of the Defendants and reiterated the contents of the plaint. It further submitted that ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Subsidy Scheme is not applicable to Plaintiff as Plaintiff is not Bank.
11. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Hon'ble High Court on 16.01.1998 when the suit was pending before it.
1. Whether the suit has been signed and verified by a duly authorised person?
2. Whether the Defendants is entitled to the subsidy scheme announced by the Govt. Of India to the victims of 1984 Sikh Riots?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the amount as claimed?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so on what Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 6 of 20 amount, at what rate and for what period?
5. Relief.
12. Both Plaintiff and Defendants examined two witnesses each in support of their respective cases.
13. Plaintiff witness PW1 Sh K. G. S. Moorthi Deputy Manager (Law) NSIC Ltd in examination in chief deposed on the lines of the plaint relying upon GPA dt 25.09.1991 in favor of Sh. B. L. Malhotra who as Ex PW1/1 issued by the Plaintiff entitling him to sign verify and institute the present plaint, Memorandum of agreement for supply of a Blow Moulding Machine for a sum of Rs 2,08,094/ Ex P1, agreement dt 19.02.1987 for Windsor Model SP130 Injection Moulding Machine for Rs 8,87,133/ Ex P2, reports of the official of Plaintiff about the satisfactorily working of the machines and being used by the Defendants as Ex PW1/2 to Ex PW1/10, returned cheques with Memo ExbP3 to P21, Letters dt 03.05.91, 13.09.91, 04.12.91, 20.05.92 and 07.05.92 written by Plaintiff as ExPW1/15 to Ex PW1/19, letters dt 16.10.86, 16.10.89, 12.04.91, 09.05.91, 08.08.91, 15.12.91, 03.02.92, 28.04.92 written by defendants wherein dfendants admitted the letters on 16.10.86, 16.10.89,15.12.91, 28.04.92 as Ex PW1/11 to Ex PW1/14, Notice dt 01.10.94 terminating Hire Purchase agreement dt 25.07.85 and 19.02.87 as Ex PW1/20, receipt as Ex PW1/21, defendants reply to legal notice as Ex PW1/22.
14. PW2 Sh Rajesh Kumar, D.M. Accounts appeared to prove accounts and outstanding against the Defendants and relied upon statements of account Ex PW2/1 and Ex PW2/2.
Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 7 of 20
15. Defendant No.2 himself appeared as DW1 and in examination in chief deposed on the lines of his written statement and relied upon FIR Ex DW1/2, NSIC's liberalized scheme for supply of Machines on Hire Purchase basis to rehabilitate the small scale units affected by Riots during 31st Oct to 11th Nov 1984 as Ex DW1/3, letter written by Plaintiff to the supplier of the machines for supplying the machines soon as unit is riot affected as Ex DW1/4, copy of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as Ex DW1/5, circular of Reserve Bank of India sent to all banks asking to charge interest @1% simple interest from riots affected persons as Ex DW1/6, letters reminding Plaintiff of the circular of RBI as Ex DW1/7 to Ex DW1/10, copy of RTI confirming Plaintiff as Financial Institution as Ex DW1/11 and reply in form of affidavit of Union of India in the writ petition bearing No. W.P.(C) 2720/2008 as Ex DW1/12.
16. Summoned witness DW2 brought the certified copy of Circular dt 01.09.1993 issued by Reserve Bank of India for the schedule commercial Banks and for genera public as Ex DW2/1.
17. Respective testimonies of the witnesses have been discussed while recording issue wise findings wherever it was required.
18. Both Ld. Counsels for parties have argued in support of their respective clients' case and after hearing arguments and going through the record, evidence and material on record issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE No. 1: Whether the suit has been signed and verified by a duly authorised person?
Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 8 of 20
19. While framing issues, upon whom onus lies has not been clarified but from the way issue has been framed it is no longer unclear that it is the Plaintiff which has to prove this issue.
20. PW1 in his examination in chief specifically deposed that General Power of attorney dt 25.09.1991 executed by the Plaintiff in favor of Sh. B. L. Malhotra empowering him to sign, verify and institute present plaint on behalf of Plaintiff and who was the principal officer with the Plaintiff company and was fully conversant with the facts of the case. In cross examination he admitted that he has no authority letter to represent on and to appear in this matter as witness on behalf of plaintiff. He further deposed that without seeing the documents he could not say as to who had signed the plaint or whether the said person had retired or not.
21. Defendants' witnesses have not deposed a single word on this issue.
22. While cross examining PW1, no suggestion was given that Sh. B. L. Malhotra was not authorised to sign verify and institute the present plaint or that GPA Ex PW1/1 was never executed in his favor by Plaintiff or that the same is forged one or that he was not conversant with facts of the present case or that he was not the employee of the Plaintiff. Moreover, it is not in dispute that Defendants have availed Hire Purchase facility being extended by the Plaintiff. It is also not in disputer that there exists dispute between the parties with regard to rate of interest to be charged on the finance availed by Defendants from Plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that both PW1 and PW2 are employee of the Plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that there is no Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 9 of 20 allegation of vested interest in any of the official of the Plaintiff. In Union Bank Of India Vs Naresh Kumar AIR 1007 SC 3 it was ruled that lack of authority is curable defect and would stand ratified by the principal if subsequent conduct of the Principal is such as would justify authority in favor of the person who instituted the suit. In the present case also there is clear cut deposition about the authority in favor of Sh B.L.Malhotra and there is lack of cross examination as noted above and also in view of the ruling in the Union Bank Of India Vs Naresh Kumar (supra) the subsequent conduct of the Plaintiff in continuing with the suit have ratified the act of the officer and also in view of the fact that public money is involved, issue No.1 is decided in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
ISSUE No. 2: Whether the Defendants is entitled to the subsidy scheme announced by the Govt. Of India to the victims of 1984 Sikh Riots?
23. While framing issues, upon whom onus lies has not been clarified again but from the way issue has been framed it is no longer unclear that it is the Defendants who have to prove this issue.
24. Availing of Hire Purchase facility being extended by the Plaintiff is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that two machines vide Hire Purchase agreements dt 25.07.1986 and 19.02.87 were provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
25. Defendant is claiming benefits of subsidy scheme announced by the Govt. Of India to the victims of 1984 Sikh Riots, whereas Plaintiff claims none applicability of the said scheme to Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 10 of 20 Plaintiff as Plaintiff is not "Bank" the expression used in the circular or the in the scheme.
26. Defendants have claimed themselves to be the victims of riots following assassination of the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi on 31st Oct 1984, in which his factory with raw material worth Rs 26,00,000/ was burnt and he came on road with no source of livelihood. He brought the FIR is ExDW1/2.
27. The factum of defendants being victim of riots of 1984 following assassination of the then Prime Minister Smt Indira Gandhi though disputed in replication, has not at all been disputed or questioned in the evidence and DW1 has not been cross examined at all on this point. Hence, it stands admitted and proved that Defendants was the victim of riots that shook the nation after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi.
28. Defendants claimed that Plaintiff announced a scheme for such victims known as "Liberlised Scheme for supply of Machines on Hire Purchase basis to Rehabilitate Small Scale Units affected by Riots during 31st October and 11th November 1984" Ex DW1/3. Under this scheme Defendants applied for supply of two machinery on Hire Purchase basis.
29. Plaintiff has not admitted of having announced such scheme but DW1 was not cross examined on this point nor scheme as produced on record vide Ex DW1/3 has been denied.
30. In any case it is immaterial whether Defendant availed the Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 11 of 20 Hire purchase facility under said scheme or under independent Hire Purchase agreement because even in the Scheme Ex DW1/3 which was specially designed to help victims of riots of 1984, rate of interest as prescribed in clause 11 is 12% with rebate of 2% per annum against payments of installments on or before due date.
31. Contention of the Counsel for Plaintiff is that above said ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the above said subsidy scheme of Central Government is not applicable to the present case because firstly Plaintiff is not Bank and secondly because the loan was availed much after the riots.
32. Both the contention of the Ld Counsel for the Plaintiff is not sustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harijit Singh and others Vs Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1433 in para 2 of the judgment observed "A tragic event beyond belief in the history of India took place on 31st October 1984 when Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister was assassinated. It was alleged that the assassins belonged to Sikh community. This inflamed feelings. As a results, riots broke out all over the country. The members of this community throughout India particularly in Delhi, several gruesome incidents took place resulting in large scale arson, looting, systematic violence, attacks on Gururdwaras. The duration of violence differed in various areas. Many Sikhs were killed, houses were burnt. It was an unprecedented carnage which rendered many Sikh homeless, many families lost their kith and kin and bread winners. The Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 12 of 20 details of these incident are set out in the affidavit in the writ petition."
33. In the said judgment upon the statement given by Ld. Attorney General on behalf of Union of India, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order:
"Ld. Attorney General has made the following statement in respect of the recovery of loans advanced to riot victims of 1984 following the assassination of Mrs Gandhi:
"The banks will be advised to consider the case of each loanee on merits and to give such relief as may be considered just, fair and reasonable based on the facts of each case. Reserve Bank of India is requested to advise the banks accordingly."
In view of the above statement we direct the banks not to have recourse to recovery proceedings until the banks decide the case of each individual concerned in accordance with the advise of the Reserve Bank of India. This order does not concern those persons who are not victims of the aforesaid riots. The order of stay of recovery made by us relates only to aforesaid category of persons. This does not prevent any bank from instituting a suit in court if it is felt that the suit is about to be granted by time. Even if any such suit is filed it shall be kept pending until the relief to be granted is determined by the banks as per advise of the Reserve Bank of India. This order applies to the entire class of riots affected victims Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 13 of 20 referred to above whether they have filed a petition in this court or not. All these cases are disposed of. Liberty to mention."
34. Pursuant to said order Reserve Bank of India advised the Banks by its circular RPCD No. PLFS.BC.67/PS126(I)89/90 dt 23 rd December 1989 as under:
"(i) The banks should make review of the credit facilities granted to all the November 1984 riot affected borrowers taking into account their repaying capacity, the nature and type of the securities available, the present condition of the securities, other assets, if any, owned by them and all other relevant factors.
(ii) On the basis of the review, banks should decided the case of each loanee on merits and afford such relief as may be considered reasonable. The relief may include further extension of time for repayment of dues, entering into compromise arrangements and in case where there are no reasonable chances of recovery of dues, write off of the amounts due from the borrowers concerned."
35. Thereafter, a decision was taken by the Government of India to extend relief in deserving cases by way of reduction of interest on banks loans to six percent per annum in the case of borrowers affected by the November, 1984 riots. Accordingly, a "Central Interest Subsidy Scheme for November 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers" was prepared and issued by Reserve Bank of India vide its circular RPCD No.PLFS/BC22?PS126D/90/91 dated 19th September, 1990. The Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 14 of 20 main feature of the Scheme are as under:
"(i) The banks shall charge interest at six percent per annum on all eligible outstanding loans in a deserving case, as on 31st December, 1989, for the period from 1st November, 1984 if the loan is granted on or before 1 st November, 1984 or from the date of grant of loan, if granted subsequently, to 31st December, 1989.
(ii) The borrowers shall be advised by the bank in writing about the extent of relief provided in each account as also the balance outstanding in the accounts as on 31 st December, 19 and the date on which relief is provided.
(iii) The relief granted by the banks shall be reimbursed to the banks by the Central Government.
(iv) The entire interest that has accrued on the outstanding loan amounts after 31st December, 1989 shall be borne by the borrowers."
36. Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the said judgment ended saying " accordingly, we direct that the Union of India as also the Reserve Bank of India shall include all financial institutions in the definition of "banks" both State and Central in its " Central Interest Subsidy Scheme for November 1984Riots Affected Borrower."
37. Division bench of Hon'ble High Court relying upon the Harijit Singh (supra) in the case titled as Smt Swarn Kaur and Ors Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 15 of 20 Vs Union Bank of India AIR 2003 Delhi 359 in para 16 held as under:
"...... The learned trial Judge while adverting to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harijit Singh's case (supra) did not appreciate that pursuant thereto a Debt Relief Scheme for November, 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers had been framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, which Scheme was thereafter revised by the Reserve Bank of India called "Central Interest Subsidy (Revised) for November, 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers. The Central Subsidy Scheme was self contained and took care of loans advanced to borrowers, who were riot affected, before or after the November, 1984 riots. In such cases benefit of "complete write off" or interest thereon, as the case may be, was to be given.
There is no scope for the Banks to have misunderstood the import of the Scheme framed by the Reserve Bank of India to rehabilitate the riot victims of 1984. Having treated the appellants' as riot victim borrowers under a Rehabilitation Scheme, there was no justification of not treating the appellants' case as one covered under the Central Interest Subsidy Scheme and demanding of them, interest at a rate greater than permissible under the Central Scheme. The suit filed was an attempt to cover up the Plaintiff Bank's own defaults of not having claimed the subsidy in accordance with the Scheme. In any event of the matter, whether the plaintiffBank claims the subsidy or not is its internal matter and has got nothing to do with its claim against the appellantsdefendants. This Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 16 of 20 is a case where the efforts of the Government to ameliorate the miserable lot of the riot victims of 1984 has been deliberately subverted by the Bank. The profound agony of the appellants magnified and prolonged for nearly 18 years."
38. Plaintiff has not disputed that it floated a scheme namely "Liberalised scheme for supply of machines on Hire Purchase basis to rehabilitated Small Scale Units affected by Riots during 31 st October to 11th Nov, 1984" but strangely has not admitted the same also. Such admission has come on record only by way of remaining silent in response to submission of the Defendants. Whereas fair play requires that Plaintiff should have either pleaded the same at the very first instance or at least should have specifically admitted in replication when Defendant pleaded the same. The conduct of the Plaintiff to this extent display as if Plaintiff was deliberately trying to deny benefit of such Central Interest Subsidy Scheme to the Defendants or was making an attempt to cover up its own default of not having claimed the subsidy in accordance with the Scheme.
39. Plaintiff was aware of the status of the Defendants as that of riot affected person as is clear from the copy of Performa ExDW1/4 and its annexed letter dt 16.03.85 ( Ex D9) written by Plaintiff to the supplier of machines. In both these documents Plaintiff itself has described the Defendants as riot affected. Not only this in the letter dt 16.03.1985 Plaintiff itself has requested the supplier of the machine to supply the machine to a small unit in Delhi who has suffered damage during the riots in Delhi and to enable the unit to rehabilitate immediately, machine be supplied immediately. Both these documents Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 17 of 20 have not been disputed by the Plaintiff.
40. Thus, in view of the above Plaintiff being a financial institution is covered by the word "Bank" used in the Central Interest Subsidy Scheme for November 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers and it has been specifically so clarified by the RBI vide its letter RPCD No. PLFS.310/05.04.02/9495 dt 29th September 1994 and Defendant being riot victim is entitled for benefits of said scheme directing charging of simple interest at 1% per annum from the date of loan granted after 1st Nov 1984.
In view of the above findings, issue No.2 is decided in favor of Defendants and against the Plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the amount as claimed?
41. This issue deserved to be decided against the Plaintiff for the reason that Plaintiff's account is based on contractual rate of interest without extending the benefits of "Central Interest Subsidy Scheme for November 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers as revised time to time" and therefore if recalculated extending the benefits of aforesaid subsidy scheme figure will definitely be different and there may or may not be any outstanding. Defendant has not placed on record any statement of account to show as to how much amount he has repaid. In the absence of any definite figure from either side, therefore it cannot be said as to what amount Plaintiff is entitled to.
Hence, the issue No. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant.
Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 18 of 20 ISSUE No. 4: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest ? If so on what amount, at what rate and for what period?
42. As far as interest is concerned, in view of the "Central Interest Subsidy Scheme for November 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers"
as revised time to time Plaintiff can claim simple interest @ 1% percent per annum on any outstanding if found due upon calculating simple interest @ 1% per annum on the principal. As far as period is concerned, Plaintiff can claim interest only upto the date of filling of the suit, if only any outstanding is found due after extending the benefits of the scheme to the Defendant. Plaintiff shall not be entitled claim interest for the period litigation remained pending in this court because litigation mainly took place due to refusal on the part of the Plaintiff to extend the benefit to the Defendant and this resulted not only in the harassment of the Defendants for 21 years but also in the wastage of precious judicial time. This Plaintiff did despite clear cut RBI direction and Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling.
Hence, the issue No. 4 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE No. 5: Relief In view of the findings recorded on issue No. 2, 3 and 4 suit of the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed but in the totality of circumstances of the case as the public money is involved, Plaintiff is directed to treat the Defendants as deserving case under the "Central Interest Subsidy Scheme for November 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers"
as revised time to time, process the case in accordance with that Scheme and put the Defendants to notice accordingly. If, upon consideration, any amount is found payable, the Defendants shall pay the same in monthly installments of his choice but not less than Rs Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 19 of 20 5000/ per month. No interest at any rate shall be charged for the ligation period as the litigation took place mainly due to refusal on the part of the Plaintiff to extend the benefits of the aforesaid scheme to the Defendants resulting into harassment of the Defendants and wastage of precious judicial time; and also for the period Plaintiff takes to inform the Defendants any outstanding upon reconsideration in compliance of the present direction. It is made clear that Plaintiff shall calculate amount charging simple interest @ 1 % per annum upto the date of institution of the present suit and not for period thereafter. If after extending the benefits in accordance with the aforesaid scheme, any outstanding is found due a simple interest @ 1% per annum shall be charged on reducing balance from the date of intimation in writing to Defendants against receipt, till the clearance of the dues.
Suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed with aforesaid liberty to the Plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(Harish Kumar)
Announced in open Court ADJ13 (Central)/THC
(Judgment contains 20 pages) Delhi / 19.05.2016
Suit No. 251/16 The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Maharana Electronics & Ors. Page No. 20 of 20