Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Ramavtar Aggarwal vs Corporation Bank And Ors. on 5 September, 2001
JUDGMENT
A.K. Srivastava, Chairman
1. This appeal has been filed by one of the defendants in O. A. No. 121/99 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur against order dated 17.7.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of that Tribunal.
2. The impugned order has been passed on an application dated 20.2.2001 moved by the appellant, a copy of which has today been filed by the appellant. By that application the appellant requested the Tribunal below to direct the respondent Bank to pay Rs. 1,56,373 and to dismiss the Original Application filed by the respondent Bank and for award of heavy cost of Rs. 50.000/-. The grounds for making the aforesaid prayers had been stated by the appellant in that application which inter alia are that after the appellant compromised the claim under the respondent Bank's application he came to know about the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for recovery of dues relating to Non-performing Assets of public sector Banks; that at the time when the compromise was entered into by the appellant with the respondent Bank the respondent Bank was very much aware of the aforesaid guidelines but had kept the appellant in dark and did not disclose the same to him; that as per the guidelines only an amount of Rs. 4,69,820/- is the outstanding against defendants and, therefore, the respondent Bank cannot claim more than the amount which it could get as per the aforesaid guidelines; that the appellant had already deposited much more than the aforesaid outstanding amount as per the guidelines; that appellant deposited Rs. 5 on 12.2.2001 but the same has not been shown in the Statement of Account by the respondent Bank.
3. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below passed the impugned order whereby he has kept the issue open for decision at the time of final hearing.
4. In this appeal the only prayer made by the appellant was for quashing the impugned order and no further prayer was made. On the last hearing when learned Counsel for the appellant was confronted as to what consequential prayer the appellant sought when he requested for time to amend the prayer clause. Today he has moved an application for amendment of prayer clause and the additional prayer which he seeks is as follows :
"That this Hon'ble Debts Recoveroy Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi may kindly direct the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur to hear and decide the application dated 20th February, 2001 first before deciding the original application for final disposal."
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. The undisputed fact is that the appellant ^ and the respondent entered into a compromise for liquidating the debt against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs and that the appellant made part deposits and was seeking time from the Tribunal below for making good the balance. Before the entire balance could be repaid, the appellant came to know about the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and on perusing the same the appellant found that he had compromised for a sum which was much more than what the Bank could get from the appellant in view of the said guidelines. Therefore, the appellant is now trying to wriggle out of the compromise and on the basis of the said guidelines he claims that he has overpaid and, therefore, he should gel refund of the excess payment. Consequently, the aforesaid application dated 20.2.2001 was moved. Such an application was moved without amending the Written Statement challenging the compromise on grounds claiming any set off/counter claim.
6. I have gone through the impugned order and in the circumstances stated above I agree with the same because at any interim stage such a dispute should not be decided. The pleas, the appellant wishes to make, should only be considered at the time of final hearing of the case, especially, when after compromising the claimed debt the appellant is trying to wriggle out of the same and is making a counter claim against the appellant Bank.
7. In view of the above observations, I am not inclined to direct the Tribunal below to hear and decide the application dated 20.2.2001 at a stage before final hearing in the Original Application filed by the respondent Bank.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed in limine.