Full Text
"The case is fitfor consignment and that no"proceedings are
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Court of India, in terms of rules as provided in Ch-5(C) of the High Court Rules & Orders Vol.-V", as no communication has been received in this respect.
It is also certified that all the relevant papers Including office noting pertaining to payments and return of FRD/Bank
Guarantee or other documents have been removed from
Part'B'and have been placed at the end ofPc^rt'A'at oaaes
— to ■ ,
JUDGMENT
3. During Covid period, En-bloc dates w.e.f 17.03.2020 to 14.02.2022 were given by the Hon'ble Court and for such period no court orders were passed by the Hon'ble Court. Prepared by: Dealing Assistant I.D No. A.O.j(wn^s 2020:DHC:3954-DB l^J[2], % »<•+ $'-2&3 1 * IN THEHIGH COURT OFDELHIAT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)6405/2020,CMAPPL.22674/2020(forexemption)& CM APPL.22675/2020(forstay)
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Petitioner Through:Ms.Seema Gupta,Advocate versus BANK OFINDIA&ORS..Respondents Through:Mr.Parthiv J Mehta,Advocatefor Bank ofIndia. Mr.Suresh Arora,Advocate for R-2 AND W.P.(C)6406/2020,CM APPL.22679/2020(forexemption)& CM APPL.22680/2020(forstay)
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Petitioner Through:Ms.Seema Gupta,Advocate versus BANK OFINDIA&ORS. Respondents Through:Mr.Parthiv J Mehta,Advocatefor Bank ofIndia. Mr.Suresh Arora,Advocate for R-2 CORAM:, HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ) HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD ORDER % 15.09.2020 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO COfb'ERENCING.
1. The petitioner/Punjab and Sind Bank is aggrieved by the common judgement and order dated 07.07.2020,passed by the learned DRAT in Appeal No. 158/2017 filed by Smt.Uma Devi and Appeal No. 157/2017 filed by Smt. Sumitra Devi, against a common order passed by the learned DRT-I on 21.01.2017, dismissing their applications for seeking restraint orders against Shri Dharamvir, the respondent No.3 herein, fi*om transferring/selling or W.P.(C)6405/2020& W.P.(C)6406/2020 Page1of[3] disposingofthefirstandthesecondfloorsofpropertyNo.82/B,measuring50 sq.yardssituated atBindapurExtension,Uttam Nagar,New Delhi,in view of the Sale Certificate dated 13.06.2012, issued in their favour by the petitioner/Bankherein.Thealternativeprayer made bytheprivaterespondents was thatifphysicalpossession ofthetwo floors is nothanded overto them, thenthepetitioner/Bank hereinbedirectedtorefundtheamountspaid bythem towardssaleconsideration,i.e.,Rs.15,01,000/-each,alongwithintemst.
2. Wehaveperusedtheimpugnedjudgementandheard Ms.SeemaGupta leanred counsel for the petitioner/Bank as also Mr. Suresh Arora, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Uma Devi and Smt. Sumitra Devi in both the petitions and haveexpressed aprimafacie view thattheleamed DRATcannot befaulted forsetting asidetheimpugned orderpassed bytheDRT-I and hold thatthepetitioner/Bank herein oughtto refundthesale considerations paid by Smt.UmaDevi and Smt.Sumitra Devi along with interestatthe rate of12% p.a.fromthedateof receiptofthemoniesbytheBank,tillthedateofpayment. In our opinion, die appeals preferred by both the auction purchasers named above, were rightly aUowed by the DRAT and the impugned order dated 20.07.2017,passedbytheDRT-1,Delhi,dismissingtheirSAs,wassetasidefor just and valid reasons. There was no justification to relegate the auction purchasers to seek civil remedies against the petitioner/Bank or others for refund ofthe money deposited bythem as auctionpurchasers in respect ofthe twofloors ofthesubjectpremises.
3. Atthis stage,we have enquired from Ms.Seema Gupta,leamed counsel for the petitioner/Bank, if the parties are willing to settle the matter on the petitioner/Bank refunding the sale consideration received from Smt.Uma Devi and Smt. Sumitra Devi with interest as awarded by the leamed DRAT till 9.6.2019 and with scaled down interest for the period between 10.06.2019, W.P.(C)6405/2020& WP.(C)6406/2020 - p^gg2of[3] when thejudgement was reserved by the learned DRAT,to 07.07.2020, when thejudgment wasfinally pronounced.
4. The matter was passed over for both sides to obtain instructions. On the second call at01.55PM,Mr.Suresh Arora,learned counselfor the respondent No.2 in both petitions,states that his clients are agreeable ifthe rate ofinterest for the period between 10.06.2019 to 07.07.2020, is reduced to a reasonable amount. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank insists that no interest ought to be payable by the petitioner/Bank for the aforesaid period as the Bank cannot be burdened with interest when the impugnedjudgement was reserved on 10.06.2019 and pronounced after almostone year.
5. To balance the equities, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner/Bank to refund the sale consideration to both of the auction purchasers alongwith interest calculated@12% p.a.from the date ofreceipt of monies by the petitioner/Bank, till 09.06.2019. However, the interest for the period between 10.06.2019 to 07.07.2020, shall be calculated @6% p.a. and paid to the respondentNo.2in each petition within aperiod ofthree weeksfrom today. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner/Bank defaults in paying the aforesaid amount to the respondent No.2 in both the petitions within the stipulated timeline,then it shall have to pay upto date interest on the principal amountatthe rate as directed intheimpugned order.
6. The petitions are disposed ofalong with the pending applications on the above consentterms. HIMAKOHLI,J. SEPTEMBER 15,2020/kk W.P.(C)6405/2020& W.P.(C)6406/2020 J SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J. Page3of[3]