Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Canara Bank vs Mrs. K.P. Shanti Rao And Ors. on 19 April, 2002
ORDER
A.K. Srivastava, J. (Chairman)
1. This appeal by the lender Bank, namely, Central Bank of India, is against order dated 26.5.1999 passed by DRT, Delhi in O.A. No. 643/96, Central Bank of India v. K.P. Shantirao and Ors.
2. The Tribunal below has allowed the recovery application and directed the respondents to pay the suit amount. The appellant Bank is satisfied with that order but is aggrieved in respect of the rate of pendente lite interest awarded by the Tribunal below. Hence, this appeal is only on a limited point whether the appellant should be given that rate of pendente lite interest which it claimed in the original recovery application.
3. The appellant had claimed pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum chargeable with quarterly rests. The Tribunal, however, has granted pendente lite interest at simple rate of 12%.
4. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.
5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant ought to have been granted pendente lite interest at the rate of contractual rate of interest. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that it was not obligatory on the part of the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below to have granted the pendente lite rate of interest at any contractual rate of interest because it was entirely at the discretion of the learned Presiding Officer to award pendente lite interest at a rate which was found to be reasonable by him. He has relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and Ors., I (2002) BC 150=VII (2001) SLT 400=AIR 2001 SC 3095. According to him, grant of pendente lite interest has been directed to be within the discretion of the learned Presiding Officer of a Court and it is not obligatory on the Court to grant contractual rate of interest.
6. So far as discretion with the learned Presiding Officer of a Tribunal is concerned, I agree with the contentions of learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 that as per the law settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is a matter of discretion with the learned Presiding Officer. He may grant contractual rate, he may grant lesser rate and he may not even grant any pendente lite interest if the facts and circumstances of the case so warranted. Therefore, I do not agree with learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal below ought to have granted pendente lite interest at the contractual rate.
7. However, in this case, I find that the contractual rate of interest also does not appear to be 18% per annum with quarterly rests. Copy of the Original Application for recovery is on record and on perusal of the same, it would be found that in one account 12.5% interest has been charged, in second account only 10% interest has been charged, in third account 10.5% interest has been charged and in the fourth account no interest has been charged. The recovery application does not state as to what was the contractual rate of interest. Only this much is there in the application for recovery that the borrower had to pay interest as per the Reserve Bank of India rate of interest chargeable to the loan in question. What was the prevalent rate of interest declared by the Reserve Bank of India has nowhere been stated in the recovery application. The appellant, after calculating the amount due as per the details given in para 4 of the recovery application, has in para 12 thereof, stated in the recovery application that an amount of Rs. 15,60,187.40 was recoverable by it together with interest @ 18%. In the prayer clause of the recovery application, it has been stated that the plaintiff claims that a decree for a sum of Rs. 15,60,187.40 together with interest @ 18% per annum chargeable with quarterly rests be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Therefore, the net result is that the recovery application docs not state that 18% with quarterly rests was the agreed rate of interest between the parties. When there is no averment in the plaint that 18% with quarterly rests was the agreed rate of interest, the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant should be granted pendente lite interest @ 18%, per annum with quarterly rests does not have any merit. Moreover, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below was not bound to give the agreed rate of interest and it was within his discretion to grant pendente lite interest at such rate which was found by him to be reasonable.
8. I have gone through the impugned order and I find that the learned Presiding Officer after going through the facts and circumstances of the case has exercised his discretion in awarding the pendente lite interest @ 12% only. The impugned order says that since the suit amount has been paid and the pendente lite interest also the defendants are willing to pay in lump-sum, interest of justice will be met best if the following order is passed. Therefore, grant of pendente lite interest at 12% per annum is based on facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion, the discretion so exercised cannot be said to be unreasonable and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
9. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.