Ascot Hotel & Resorts Ltd and Anr v. Union of India & Anr

4. The sum of Rs. 10 crores (Ten Crores) paid shall be adjusted towards the principal sum adjudged w.e.f. the date of payment and balance amount shall be recoverable.

5. It is further ordered that the issue with regard to the settlement of claim involving ARC on behalf of the defendant is left open. Details of the cost including court fee on application: Rs. 2,00,000/- It is certified that the above-mentioned sum of Rs. 69,51,24,331/-”

13.

HUDCO then initiated execution proceedings before the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, New Delhi, being RC No. 330/15, to recover the above stated amount in terms of the recovery certificate. Pursuant to such recovery, it also sought attachment of various shareholdings of Petitioner No.2 in a company called ‘M/s Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.’.

14. While the execution proceedings were pending, HUDCO had also filed an appeal challenging the initial recovery certificate dated 12th August, 2015. In the said appeal, an order dated 1st April, 2016 came to be passed, wherein the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (‘DRAT’) modified the decree due to various reasons. The relevant observations of the DRAT are set out below:- “Undoubtedly the respondents have not been able to make payment by the date stipulated in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. In this regard, the counsel for the respondents would blame the appellant. Plea is that the appellant had declined to accept payment on the ground that it was intending to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal before the High Court. It is stated that the respondents had made one reconstruction company ready for making the payment but lost the opportunity because of the conduct of the appellant. No such plea was raised before the appellate forum when order dated 20.1.2015 was passed ever since the date of notice in this appeal. The respondents have been expressing their readiness to make payment but has not made any payment despite grant of time and opportunity. The appellant is justified in pleading that concessional rate of interest as allowed cannot operate now once payment is not made by 25.3.2015. This is well indicative from that part of the directions whereby the appellate forum had allowed hearing to resume in the S.A if payment was not made by 25.3.2015. The fate of S.A. is not made out from the record. Despite all this, the respondents were given opportunity to either bring the payment or a representative of the company to show payment to enjoy the benefit of concessional rate of interest. The respondents have not succeeded in taking either of the option extended. The counsel for the parties did make an attempt to make submission on merit. Since the primary aim is to seek recovery of the amount, the prayer made by the counsel for the respondents to discharge the entire liability in a time-bound manner is worth consideration. Counsel for the respondents state that they would arrange payment of the entire dues as allowed in the O.A within a period of four months through some Asset Reconstruction Company or otherwise. Appellant can be expected to render help to the respondents if they bring forward any Asset Reconstruction company to discharge the liability. Counsel for the appellant states that if any such time and concession are to going to be allowed to the respondents, then there should be a default clause also incorporated in the order. This seems to be fairly valid solution to the entire issue. Without going into the fault, if any, on the part of the parties either to make or to receive payment, four months' time from today is allowed to the respondents to discharge the entire liability as determined in the O.A. with simple rate of interest @14% p.a. from the date of filing the O.A. till the date of payment. If the payment is not made within the period of this four months, the appellant would be entitled to recover the amount allowed in the O.A. with contractual rate of interest which is 15.5% p.a. with quarterly rests. I have persuaded myself to adopt this course in order to ensure recovery of the dues of the appellant keeping in view that this Tribunal would always have the discretion to allow the rate of interest as considered appropriate. Irrespective of the order passed by the Tribunal below, the Tribunal could have considered the aspect of interest if pleaded before it. Another issue which cropped up during the hearing was that the respondents have not renewed the lease and have allowed it to lapse. After advancing some submission the counsel for the respondents concedes that the respondents would get the lease of the land renewed. The appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of.”

15. A perusal of the above order dated 1st April, 2016 passed by the DRAT would show that the Petitioners had agreed to make payment as per the decree passed by the DRT dated 12th August, 2015. In terms thereof, DRAT permitted the Petitioners to make the payment within four months from 1st April, 2016. The DRAT also added a default clause that if the amounts are not paid within the four months period as directed under the order, HUDCO would be entitled to recover the amount allowed in the OA with contractual rate of interest which is @15.5% per annum with quarterly rests.

16. The Petitioners defaulted in the said payments as well.

HUDCO then approached the DRT for modification of the original recovery certificate in view of the defaults by the Petitioners. The modified recovery certificate was then issued on 20th February, 2019 in the following terms:- “It is ordered that Recovery Certificate issued earlier vide R.C. No. 330 of 2015 is modified to the extent that the defendants are allowed four months' time from the date of order of Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi to discharge the entire liability as (illegible) the O.A. with simple rate of interest @ 14% per annum from the date of filing of the O.A. till realization. If the payment is not made within a period of four months, the appellant would be entitled to recover the amount allowed in the OA with contractual rate of interest which is @ 15.5% per annum with quarterly rests. Given under my hand and seal of this Tribunal on this the 20 February, 2019”

17. In the meantime, certain proceedings in respect of M/s Connaught Plaza Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. and its dispute with McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. were pending before National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), wherein Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to have received a substantial amount of money from McDonald’s. Thus, HUDCO approached NCLAT for recovering its decretal amount from the said amounts received by Petitioner No.2.

18. On 15th May, 2019, HUDCO’s intervention application being I.A. NO. 1599 of 2019 was allowed by NCLAT and accordingly, NCLAT also directed the parties to explore any possibility of settlement. Pursuant to the said direction, an OTS offer was again made by the Petitioner No.1 to HUDCO, which was denied by HUDCO.

19. In the meantime, on 9th May, 2019 the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, New Delhi, upon an application filed by HUDCO in RC No. 330/15, directed Petitioner No.2 to deposit with DRT, the amounts received under the settlement with McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. This order was then challenged by the Petitioners before the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, New Delhi, by way of DRT Appeal No. 776/2019. However, the Petitioners thereafter deposited the said amount of Rs. 10 crores.

20. The proceedings before DRT/DRAT continued between the parties. The OTS Scheme, which was repeatedly proposed by the Petitioners was rejected by the Respondents on the ground of various calculations being erroneous, in view of the fact that Respondent No.2- HUDCO was of the opinion that it was entitled to recover the entire amount under the recovery certificate.

HUDCO felt that the entire amount as per the recovery certificate could be satisfied by the Petitioners out of the funds which they had received from McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd.

21. It was under these circumstances that the present writ petition came to be filed by the Petitioners, before this Court on 15th November, 2019. The prayers in this petition read as under:- “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or any order directing the Respondent No. 2 to extend the benefit of the OTS Scheme to the Petitioners; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or any order directing that the one time settlement offer of Rs. 59,93,93,238 /- by the Petitioners is within the purview of the OTS Scheme of the Respondent No.2;

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring that the case of the Petitioner No. 1 is not a decreed case and, therefore, does not fall under Clause 6.4.[1] of the OTS Scheme of 2014 (corresponding Clause 6.[5] of the OTS Scheme of 2019);

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 4/5 September 2019 issued by the Respondent No. 2 for declaring the Petitioner No. 2 as a wilful defaulter; (e) Grant stay of further proceedings before the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal-11, New Delhi, in OA No. 224 of 2013 and the Ld. Recovery, Officer, DRT-II, New Delhi in RC No. 330/2015, during pendency of the present Petition; (f) Grant an ad interim, order keeping in abeyance the implementation of, Show Cause Notice dated 4/5 September 2019 and restrain the Respondent No.2 from declaring the Petitioners as wilful defaulters, during the pendency of the present Petition;”

22. Notice was issued in this petition, vide order dated 23rd January, 2020, subject to the issue of maintainability being decided and the following order was passed:-

the Petitioners in advance.

4. As far as the show cause notices stated to have been issued by Respondent No.2 to the Petitioners, in the event that any coercive steps are taken in consequence thereof it will be open to the Petitioners to apply to the Court.

5. Replies be filed within eight weeks. Rejoinder be filed before the next date.

6. List on 29th April, 2020.”

23. As can be seen from the above order, HUDCO was proceeding to auction the property in Noida and in respect thereof, certain interim directions were also issued. The Petitioners were also directed to deposit various sums as captured in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 23rd January, 2020 as set out above.

24. The present writ petition continued to remain pending and was being heard from time to time. On 15th April, 2021, an application being C.M. NO. 14540/2021 was moved on behalf of Petitioner No. 1, seeking stay of notice dated 24th March, 2021 for proclamation of sale of the Noida property. During the hearing of this application, it was brought to the notice of the Court that due to non-payment of the lease rent, the lease of the Noida property was itself terminated by the Noida Authority. Under these circumstances, the Court had passed the following order:- “ C.M. No. 14540/2021 Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 points out that lease in respect of the property in question stands terminated by the Noida Authority on account of non-payment of lease rent/ ground rent. The outstanding liability is to the tune of Rs.10 Crores, which the petitioners have failed to pay. He also points out that for this reason the auction notices have specifically provided that apart from the reserved price, the auction purchaser would have to deposit the outstanding lease rent/ ground rent to have the lease restored. We have made it clear to learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the lease rent/ ground rent is not paid and lease restored in their favour by the Noida Authority before the next date, we would not entertain the present application at the behest of the petitioners since the status of the petitioners in respect of the property in question ceases to be that of a lessee. Let the respondents file their reply within a week. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date. List on 05.05.2021.”

25. As per the above order, the Petitioners were to pay the lease rent/ ground rent and get the lease restored in their favour, failing which, the application/ petition would not be entertained by this Court. It appears that the amount of Rs. 10 crores mentioned as being the outstanding liability is an inadvertent error in the said order dated 15th April, 2021.

26. The said order dated 15th April, 2021 was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) 7135/2021 wherein vide order dated 21st May, 2021, the Supreme Court granted stay of the notice issued by DRT-II, New Delhi, on 24th March, 2021. In effect, therefore, the auction notice of the Noida property was stayed.

27. This SLP was finally disposed of on 26th April, 2022 by the Supreme Court in the following terms:- “This petition has been filed against the High Court’s order refusing to pass an interim order in the matter. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly and very fairly stated that the interim order granted by this Court on 21.05.2021 may continue till the final disposal of the writ petition, which may be decided by the High Court at an early date. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this special leave petition with the direction that the interim order dated 21.05.2021, granted by this Court, shall continue till the disposal of the Writ Petition(C) No.12089/2019 pending before the High Court. We, however, request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the said writ petition. We hope and trust that every endeavour will be made by the High court to dispose of the same within three months. With the aforesaid observations, the special leave petition stands disposed of along with the pending applications.”

28. As per the above order, the stay on the auction notice of the Noida property continued and the Supreme Court directed that the hearing in this writ petition would be expedited and an attempt would be made to dispose it of within three months.

29. In the meantime, HUDCO’s application for intervention was allowed by NCLAT, as already stated above. However, another application filed by HUDCO before NCLAT wherein further directions were sought, was rejected by NCLAT vide its order dated 13th December, 2022. This order of NCLAT was challenged by HUDCO in Civil Appeal Nos. 477-478 of 2023, wherein HUDCO was given the liberty to realize the amount in terms of the decree passed by DRT-II, New Delhi. The said order passed by the Supreme Court is set out below: “Permission to file appeals is granted Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that no question of law requiring consideration arises. It is open to the appellant – HUDCO to avail all remedies available in law, to realize the amounts that are due to it pursuant to the decree of the DRT. The appeals are dismissed but subject to the above observations. All pending applications stand disposed of.”

30. The present writ petition has therefore been heard on merits. In the meantime, in this matter, certain other orders have been passed, which are also relevant to be captured.

31. After the remand by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 477-478 of 2023, the matter has been heard by various predecessor benches of this Court from time to time.

32. On 16th July, 2024, the Court, had directed that HUDCO ought to consider a fresh settlement proposal which has been given by the Petitioners. However, the Court was clear that it has not expressed any opinion in respect of the said proposal. The relevant portion of the said order is set out below:-

months with simple interest @ 14% p.a. The petitioners, however, again defaulted in making the said payment and therefore, a revised recovery certificate was issued against them.

2. It is at this stage that the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present petition. In order to show their bonafide, the petitioners‟ subject to the outcome of the present petition undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 56.36 crores to the respondent no.2, which amount the respondent no.2 accepted without prejudice to its rights and contentions.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.135.83 crores to the respondent no.2 as against the loan of Rs.62.38 crores advanced to them. However, taking into account, interest is continuously accruing, they, in order to put a quietus to the matter, are without prejudice to their rights and contentions, still willing to pay simple interest @ 14% p.a. as had been undertaken by them before the DRAT.

4. Taking into account that the respondent no.2 had agreed to accept the due amount with simple interest @ 14% p.a. before the DRAT, their insistence on interest @ 15.5% p.a. with quarterly rests is wholly unjustified. The respondent no.2, he contends, has failed to appreciate that the petitioners like all others have suffered huge business losses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

5. In response, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the petitioners‟ offer to pay simple interest @ 14% p.a. instead of the chargeable interest @ 15.5% p.a. with quarterly rests, if accepted, will cause grave financial hardship to the respondent no.2 and taking into account, the petitioners repeated defaults cannot be accepted. He further submits that as per the revised recovery certificate, a sum of over Rs.172 crores was payable by the petitioners, as on 29.02.2024 which amount is now about Rs.180 crores. He therefore prays that the petitioners offer be rejected and the writ petition be dismissed.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that taking into account the peculiar facts of the present case, the respondent no.2 should consider the petitioners‟ offer dispassionately. As prayed for by the learned counsel for respondent no.2, we grant time to the respondent no.2 to re-consider the matter within a period of six weeks.

7. We, however, make it clear that at this stage, we have not expressed any opinion regarding either the offer made by the petitioners or the stand taken by the respondent no.2 with respect to the rate of interest.”

33. On 5th August, 2024, in an application filed by the Petitioners being CM APPL. 44244/2024, the Court again was of the view that while HUDCO was considering the OTS proposal, the precipitative steps taken by HUDCO by initiating proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC’) would not be permissible and therefore, the Court observed as under:-

deposit a sum of Rs.10 crores with the Registrar General of this Court within one week from today and a further sum of Rs.10 crores within two weeks thereafter. Subject to the said deposits being made within the time so directed, the respondents will abide by their assurance given to this Court on 16.07.2024 and therefore, make an endeavour to resolve the matter amicably with the petitioners and will also refrain from taking any precipitative steps in respect of the impugned notices till the next date.

6. Needless to state that, in case, the parties are not able to arrive at any amicable settlement before the next date, the Court will take up the petition for disposal on the next date.”

34.

HUDCO thereafter rejected the OTS proposal made by the Petitioners on 11th September, 2024. Therefore, the matter is to be considered on merits.

35. Yesterday, i.e. on 24th March, 2025, when the matter was listed before this Court, after hearing the matter for sometime, the Court had directed that the outstanding dues being reflected in the form of the statement of accounts shall be produced by both the parties. Accordingly, the following directions were issued:-

36. Today, Mr. G. Saikumar, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has made the following submissions:-

(i) The Petitioners have, out of a disbursement of Rs. 62 crores, paid a sum of Rs. 135.38 crores to HUDCO and have also deposited a sum of Rs. 20 crores in terms of order dated 5th August, 2024 in the present writ petition. It is further submitted by him that the interpretation being given to the Recovery Certificate by HUDCO in terms of order dated 1st April, 2016 passed by DRAT, New Delhi is incorrect.

(ii) According to ld. Senior Counsel, the contractual rate of interest ought to be the base rate prescribed by HUDCO and in absence of a base rate being prescribed, the same would be the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) base rate plus 1%.

(iii) According to ld. Senior Counsel, in terms of the said base rate calculations, the total amount due would be a sum of Rs. 58,70,75,949/as of 31st March, 2025.

(iv) It is further submitted that even if an alternate calculation is done in terms of simple interest @14% as recorded in the order dated 1st April, 2016, the amount due would be Rs. 70,45,42,321/-.

(v) It is also impressed upon by ld. Senior Counsel that from time to time, various circulars have been issued by the RBI urging NBFCs to adopt fair practices while determining the interest rates. Additionally, to the extent possible, OTS are encouraged. Relevant circulars of the RBI are dated 1st July, 2010 and 8th June, 2023.

(vi) Ld. Senior Counsel also relies upon the decision of the Supreme

Court in Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra And Others (2002) 1 SCC 367 to argue that the Court, while dealing with such cases, does have the power in writ jurisdiction to reduce the rate of interest.

(vii) In addition, reliance is also placed upon the decision in Anil

Kumar Somani vs. Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1867, where a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has exercised discretion in writ jurisdiction and reduced the rate of interest prescribed by the DRT, which was 16.5% per annum to be calculated quarterly to 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.

(viii) It is also argued that the Supreme Court has also held that the circulars of the RBI in respect of remission to be granted to MSMEs on interest and grant of OTS ought to be followed strictly.

37. On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Sharma, ld. Counsel appearing for HUDCO has vehemently contended that this is a case which involves public money since HUDCO is a government NBFC. He further submits that:

(i) The manner in which the Petitioners have been repeatedly granted indulgence by different fora but have failed to adhere to the settlement terms, would show that no discretion is liable to be exercised in their favour.

(ii) He further submits while relying upon the decision of the

Supreme Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor & Others vs. Meenal Agarwal & Others, 2023 2 SCC 805 that when the contractual rate of interest is prescribed and the loanee has the capacity to pay the same, the Court ought not to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Chemosyn Limited and Another vs. Union Bank of India and Another, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 1137, wherein RBI’s stand is clear that such guidelines in respect of NPAs would not apply where decrees have already been passed by the appropriate forum.

(iv) Finally, it is submitted that if the contractual rate of interest in terms of the recovery certificate @ 15.5% with quarterly rests is applied, the amount that would be payable, would be Rs. 202,24,06,379/- without taking into account the amount of Rs. 20 crores deposited with the High Court. In addition, it is submitted by Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel that the HUDCO Board has also determined the base rate as 15.50% as of 01st April, 2013 and the base rate has also been determined in the following manner on the subsequent dates:- Date ROI w.e.f. 4/1/2013 15.50% 9/1/2013 15.75% 11/1/2013 16.00% 2/1/2014 16.25%

38. By applying this base rate plus 1%, in fact, the amount would be much higher i.e., Rs. 228,44,37,971/-.

39. Mr. Deepak Khosla, ld. Counsel who has chosen to intervene despite the orders passed by this Court that he would not have any locus in the present petition, has submitted that the present writ petition itself is not maintainable in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip, (2023) 17 SCC 311 as the Petitioners have an alternate remedy of approaching the DRT in terms of the order dated 1st April, 2016.

40. It is further submitted that despite specific orders of the DRT and this Court the lease of the Noida property was not renewed and the auction was not allowed to take place. The wisdom of HUDCO, being the lender, is supreme in such matters and therefore, the Court ought not to interfere in this case.

41. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties.

42. There can be no doubt that this is a case where the long-drawn litigation has mounted the dues which the Petitioners have to pay over a period of almost 15 years. The Petitioners have contested the matters in various forums DRT, DRAT, NCLT, NCLAT, this Court as also the Supreme Court. The factual narration above, would show that the final recovery certificate, which is still valid and has not been challenged by the Petitioners, is the order dated 1st April, 2016 along with the default clause as recognized by the recovery certificate dated 20th February, 2019.

43. In terms of the said recovery certificate, in fact, the Petitioners are liable to pay the contractual rate of interest, which is 15.5% per annum with quarterly rests. The recovery certificate has clearly captured the contractual rate of interest itself and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Court cannot go behind the recovery certificate and look at the contractual clauses and interpret the same in this writ petition.

44. The initial period of four months, which was granted for accepting the settlement under the OTS proposal has also lapsed. Thus, the Petitioners cannot in fact, claim any benefit after having defaulted and not paid within the four month period.

45. Thus, until the issuance of notice in this writ petition i.e., 23rd January, 2020, in the opinion of this Court, the amount in terms of the recovery certificate would be liable to be paid by the Petitioners, which is a sum of Rs. 29,66,22,652.74/- + Rs. 57,32,76,782.22/-. The said amount comes to Rs. 86,98,99,435/-.

46. In the course of this writ petition, various interim orders have been passed by this Court as also by the Supreme Court and certain protection has been extended to the Petitioners. This Court has also repeatedly passed directions for working out an OTS settlement and also for mediation.

47.

HUDCO was also directed to consider the OTS proposal and the auction of the Noida property has also been stayed, under orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this period, a sum of Rs. 20 crores was also directed to be deposited, which was complied with.

48. In view of this background, keeping in mind the prevalent rates of interest, the high rate of 15.5% with quarterly rests ought not be payable pendente lite, i.e., during the time when the present writ petition was pending. Some benefit in interest amount can be extended to the Petitioners to bring the matter to a closure. This Court is thus of the opinion that in terms of the recovery certificate itself, a simple rate of interest @14% per annum can be charged on the outstanding amount till the date of issuance of notice in this petition being 23rd January, 2020, which the Petitioners are agreeable to pay.

49. Accordingly, it is directed that on the due amount, which is calculated in terms of the recovery certificate till the date of issuance of notice in this writ petition, interest @14% per annum shall be paid by the Petitioners. The said interest amount is Rs. 63,19,52,144/- as on 31st March, 2025.

50. The total amount now payable till 31st March, 2025 would be Rs. 150,18,51,578/- [Rs. 86,98,99,435/- (principal amount) + Rs. 63,19,52,144/- (interest amount)].

51. The said amount of Rs. 20 crores, along with interest accrued thereupon, is lying with this Court. The interest accrued on the said amount of Rs. 20 crores as on 31st March, 2025 is Rs. 61,38,520/-. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 20,61,38,520/- shall be released to HUDCO from this Court. The remaining amount due to be payable would be Rs.129,57,13,058/-. A detailed tabulation of the amount payable by the Petitioner to Respondent NO. 2- HUDCO, is set out herein below: Total amount payable as on 31st March, 2025 Rs. 150,18,51,578/- [Rs.86,98,99,435/- (principal amount as per recovery certificate) + Rs. 63,19,52,144/- (interest accrued)]. Total amount to be released by the Court to Respondent No. 2- HUDCO as on 31st March, 2025 Rs. 20,61,38,520/- [Rs. 20,00,00,000/- (principal amount deposited) + Rs. 61,38,520/- (interest amount)] Final outstanding amount to be paid by Petitioners to Respondent No.2- 2-HUDCO by 30th September, 2025 including litigation cost Rs. 130,07,13,058/- [Rs. 150,18,51,578/- - Rs. 20,61,38,520/- + Rs. 50,00,000/-]

52. If the entire amount is paid by 30th September, 2025, no further interest will be payable for the March 2025 to September 2025 period.

53. Additionally, litigation costs of Rs. 50 lakhs are also awarded to Respondent No.2- HUDCO which shall be cleared by 30th September 2025.

54. If the amounts are not paid by 30th September, 2025, the Petitioners would then be liable to pay the entire amount in terms of the recovery certificate that would be @15.5% per annum with quarterly rests for the entire period along with the costs imposed today.

55. Insofar as other proceedings which may be pending in respect of this very transaction of loan between the Petitioners and the Respondents are concerned, the parties are free to place this order before the said fora for appropriate orders being passed in accordance with law.

56. The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MARCH 25, 2025/nd/ss (Corrected and released on 2nd April 2025)