Delhi High Court
Pegasus Assets Reconstruction ... vs M/S. Punjab Tractor & Ors. on 12 August, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on August 12, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 5045/2014
PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Karan Khanna, Advocate with
Mr.A.Kumar, Advocate
versus
M/S. PUNJAB TRACTOR & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
1. There are several reasons why we are not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal (DRAT).
2. The first reason is that the order-in-original was passed by the
DRAT on 07.11.2012. The said order disposed of the original
application filed by the Central Bank of India. The petitioner herein by
way of the Assignment Deed dated 22.03.2013 stepped into and
acquired rights from Central Bank of India. Subsequently, they filed an
appeal before the DRAT on 03.07.2013. The said appeal was belated
and delayed by 192 days and has been dismissed by the DRAT for the
said reason, vide order dated 25.03.2014. The order dated 25.03.2014
has not been challenged in the present writ petition, but, order dated
28.05.2014 passed by the DRAT dismissing the review application is
the subject matter of the challenge before us. Nevertheless, it is
obvious that there was delay in filing of the appeal before the DRAT.
It is also apparent that possibly Central Bank of India, the original
applicant did not want to prefer any appeal and had accepted the order
dated 07.11.2012.
3. We first examine the explanation and justification for delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was
delay in execution of the Assignment Deed and in fact, the original
transaction between the Central Bank of India and the petitioner herein
was made on 22.03.2013. No papers in support are on record, though it
is apparent that the assignment was accepted by Debt Recovery
Tribunal (DRT) vide order dated 22.05.2013. Delay between
22.03.2013 and 22.05.2013 is not explained. No cause or reason
relating to this period of inaction between 22.03.2013 and 22.05.2013
is palpable and ascertainable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
property No. A4/40, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, which was the subject
matter of mortgage in OA No. 75/1998 titled Central Bank of India Vs.
M/s. Punjab Tractors was also subject matter of a second mortgage in
SA No. 03/2006, M/s. Cogen Projects (I) Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank.
The petitioner herein had also purchased rights of Allahahad Bank
pursuant to the Assignment Deed executed in March, 2007. It is stated
that Rs. 8 Crores is due and payable and has to be recovered from the
sale of the mortgage property in this case. SA No. 3/2006 were
separate proceedings and relate to a separate debt. The order passed by
the DRAT and the order passed today, will have no bearing on the debt
due and payable and which was subject matter of SA No. 3/2006. Said
submission has no connect and effect on the issue of delay and cause
thereof, raised in this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
petitioner, on coming to know about OA No. 75/98 and as they were
assignees of Allahabad Bank had filed an application for impleadment
in OA No. 75/98. He refers to the order passed by the High Court in
Writ Petition No. 6973/2012 and also the order passed by the DRT on
the application filed by the petitioner herein also dated 07.11.2012 to
the effect that final decree in OA No. 75/98 dated 07.11.2012 would be
taken only after the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner
herein before the DRAT was decided. The said application
subsequently was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 22.09.2013
by the DRAT. The pendency of the aforesaid application is of no
relevance or consequence as far as filing of the appeal against final
adjudication order dated 07.11.2012 was concerned. This explanation
does not and would not explain and justify the delay. The two
proceedings were separate and independent.
7. We may have taken a sympathetic and lenient view in the matter
of limitation, but, we find that the DRT in paragraph 24 of their order
dated 07.11.2012 had recorded the following facts to award interest @
12% per annum. The said paragraph is reproduced for the sake of
convenience:-
"24. The applicant has claimed interest @
20.75% p.a. with quarterly rest w.e.f. 24.2.1998. Even
though, this is the contractual rate, as far as pendente
lite and future interest is concerned, it is excessive. A
substantial portion of the amount comprises of
interest. The original borrower Gurdial Singh
expired. Thereafter, Smt. Kartar Kaur was a party and
she also expired. Having due regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that
interest @ 12% p.a. shall be reasonable and adequate
and proper in this case. D1, as the principal
borrower and D2 and D3 as the guarantors are liable.
D4 to D6 stand discharged. All the interim
applications are closed in view of the above".
8. Thus, DRT had given several reasons for awarding interest
pendente lite and future @ 12% per annum, observing that this was
reasonable and adequate, firstly, as the original borrower Gurdial
Singh had expired. Thereafter, Kartar Kaur also expired. It was
accepted that the borrower had paid substantial part of the principal
amount. The principal amount borrowed was Rs. 1.3 Crores out of
which Rs. 75 lakhs was paid before the date of filing of the original
application. Recovery proceedings had been filed for Rs. 1.27 Crores,
which included interest.
9. In view of aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain this
writ petition in exercise of power of judicial review. There are a
number of defects and defaults, on the part of the petitioner, which in
the facts of the present case should not be overlooked and ignored.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
AUGUST 12, 2014/akb
