Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Madras
State Bank Of Patiala vs B. Kashinath And Ors. on 12 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)BC1
ORDER
A. Subbulakshmy, J. (Chairperson)
1. The applicant Bank filed No. OA-636/1996 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Bangalore, for recovery of Rs. 2,91,86,560.84 p. with cost, current and future interest. The defendants I to 3 and 8 remained absent and they were set ex parte. The 6th defendant during the pendency of the proceedings died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The defendants 4, 5 and 9 were represented by Counsel and filed their reply statement. The 5th defendant was the Manager of the plaintiff Bank. The matter was heard by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore and he passed order for issue of recovery certificate to recover from the defendants 1 to 3 and 9 and from the assets of late Sh. Rudrappa which are in the hands of defendants 6 to 8 for Rs. 1,65,47,807.82 p. with post current and future interest at 19.25 per cent annum compounded quarterly from the date of suit till the date of recovery and also another recovery certificate for Rs. 23,98,089/- with cost, current and future interest at 19.25 per cent per annum compounded quarterly from its due dale till the date of recovery and further holding that ihe defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 1,35,011.28 p. with current interest at the same percentage paid by them to the Bank and the balance amount of claim of the applicant Bank against the defendants 4 and 5 was rejected by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, for want of jurisdiction. Aggrieved against that order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, with regard to the rejection of the claim of the applicant Bank as against the defendants 4 and 5 the applicant Bank filed this appeal.
2. The Counsel for the applicant Bank submits that the rejection of the claim of the applicant Bank as against the defendants 4 and 5 for a sum of Rs. 92,40,664.02 p. as claim in the plaint is not proper and that claim has to be allowed. All the other defendants respondents in this appeal except 5th defendant are not contesting this appeal and the 5th defendant, the previous Bank manager is coniesting this appeal. No decree has been passed as against the 5th defendant. The Presiding Officer. DRT, on appreciation of evidence has rightly held that only the defendants 1 to 3 and 9 and from the assets of late Sri Rudrappa which arc in the hands of defendants 6 to 8 are liable to pay the amount. The 5th defendant is only the Bank Manager and no decree has been passed as against him and the Presiding Officer, DRT. has also discussed in detail with regard to the case of the 5th defendant and departmental action has already been taken as against the 5th defendant and the 5th defendant cannot be held responsible for this loan. In para 29 of his order the Presiding Officer. DRT. held that the applicant Bank can claim from the defendants 1 to 3 and 9 and from the assets of late Sri Rudrappa which are in the hands of defendants 6 to 8 and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction with regard to the claim of the Bank against defendants 4 and 5. The 5th defendant respondent who is contesting in this appeal is nowhere found liable for this borrowing by the Tribunal accordingly the 5th defendant who is contesting this appeal is held as not responsible for this borrowing and the 5th defendant is not bound by the decree passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT.
3. For the decreed amount of Rs. 23,98,089/- with cost the Presiding Officer, DRT, has awarded the current and future interest at 19.25 per cent per annum compounded quarterly from its due date till the date of recovery and for the decreed amount of Rs. 1,65,47,807.82 p. with cost, current and future interest is awarded at 19.25 per cent per annum compounded quarterly from the date of suit till the date of recovery. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that with regard to the interest from the dale of filing the suit as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Presiding Officer, DRT, is entitled to reduce the rate of interest but prior to that the defendants are liable to pay contractual rate of interest i.e. at 24 per cent. annum.
4. With regard to the decreed amount of Rs. 1,65,47,807.82 p. the interest at 19.25 per cent per annum compounded quarterly is awarded from the date of suit till the date of recovery. The Presiding Officer, DRT is entitled to reduce the rate of interest from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and so, in respect of this amount of Rs. 1,65,47,807.82 p. no modification of the decree is required and the finding of the Presiding Officer, DRT, is confirmed. With regard to the decreed amount of Rs. 23,98,089/- with cost, current and future interest at 19.25 per cent per annum compounded quarterly, since the Presiding Officer, DRT has awarded the interest at reduced rate from its due date till the date of recovery. I hereby modify the decree holding that the Bank is entitled to recover the decree amount with the contractual rate of interest till the date of filing of the suit i.e. at 24 per cent per annum and from the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery at Rs. 19.25 per cent as ordered by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, The decree passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT is modified accordingly.
5. With regard to the case of the plaintiff in rejecting its claim to an extent of Rs.
92,40,664.02 p. when asked by this Appellate Tribunal, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not able to file any proof with regard to this amount. On a perusal of the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore with regard to each claim of the appellant as stated in Clause (J) of the plaint, there is no specific finding by the Presiding Officer, DRT. The Presiding Officer, DRT, discussed, and finally found that the Presiding Officer, DRT, has no jurisdiction to decide with regard to that claim and accordingly rejected it for want of jurisdiction.
6. The applicant Bank has claimed that amount as due from these borrowing defendants. The Counsel for the appellant submits that the amount claimed in Clause (J) of the plaint relates to this borrowing and the Bank had to incur this expenditure pertaining to this borrowing only and so this amount has been added in the account of the defendants relating to this borrowing and there is nexus for this amount with this borrowing and the claim of the applicant Bank has to be allowed. But he is not able to substantiate that contention by filing the relevant proof for this. The Presiding Officer, DRT, at random has stated that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide with regard to that claim. When the applicant Bank says that claim has got some nexus with this borrowing, he ought to have given finding to that effect as to how it is not related to this borrowing and whether the claim made by the applicant Bank is substantiated by any proof as relating to this borrowing or it does not relate to that borrowing and he has not given any specific finding to that effect. Except 5th defendant, other respondents in this appeal are not contesting. Hence, I feel that it is fit case for remand with regard to this claim made in Clause (J) of the plaint and with regard to the expenses incurred in foreign country and other penalty expenditure incurred.
7. Accordingly the case is remanded back to Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore to decide with regard to the claim made by the applicant Bank in Clause (J) of the plaint and dispose of the matter on merit after hearing both parties. In other aspects i.e. with regard to the decree passed for Rs. 1,65,47,807.82 p. and for Rs. 23,98,089/- and also with regard to declaring the defendants 1 to 4 entitling for Rs. 1,35,011.28 p. are confirmed except the modification in the rate of interest as stated above. Appeal allowed in part.
8. In the result, the matter is remanded in respect of the claim made by the applicant Bank is Clause (J) of the plaint for fresh disposal according to law after hearing both parties. In other respects the decree already passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore stands confirmed except modification in the rate of interest.