Full Text
W.P.(C)9107/2015
THE NATRAJ VIHAR COOPERTIVE GROUP OF HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD &ANR Represented by:
Petitioners Mr.Arvind Kumar,Advocate with Mr.Ankit Aggarwal and Mr.Prem
Prakash,Advocates with Petitioner No.2in person
Represented by:
Respondents Mr.R.P.Vats,Advocate for R-1 Mr.Devesh Sin^,Advocate for R-4
Mr.Samar Bansal,Advocate with Mr.Siddharth Nath and Mr.Vinayak
Mehrotra,Advocatesfor R-5/60to R- 5/69andR-5/72toR-5/73
THE HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO) Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.R.P.Vats,Advocate
LTD.& ORS Respondents Represented by: Mr.Vikramaditya,Advocate with
Mr.Sanjoy Ghose,Advocate for R-5 W.P.(C)No.9107/2015&Conn.Matter Page 1 of4
2016:DHC:9287-DB
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
19.02.2016 CMNo.5684/2016 Allowed subjecttojustexceptions.
W.P.rC)Nos.9107/2015 & 1286/2016
ORDER
1. Whereas W.P.(C) No.9107/2015 is listed today as an After Notice Matter,W.P.(C)No.1286/2016 is listed for preliminary hearing today.
2. The battle is between Housing and Urban Development Corporation Vs. Natraj Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society, whose members were also impleaded before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
3. It all commenced when Natraj Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society(hereinafter referred to as Natraj)obtained a loan from the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HUDCO). Sanctioned in sum of ^89.38 lacs only, ^77.63 lacs only was disbursed, on different dates and the loan was repayable in quarterly instalments together with interest as per the agreement, and there was a clause ofpenal interestin case there was a default.
4. The dispute pertains to the interest debited to the account of the society and thus one would have expected the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to have decided HUDCO's appeal by concentrating on the debit entries concerning interest and penal interest.
5. We find that the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal which was challenged by HUDCO has gone into the issue very meticulously to W.P.(C)No.9107/2015&Conn.Matter Page2of[4] conclude that only ^1,42,16,925/- is payable by the society with 10% simple interest per annum from the date when the original application was filed till realization ofthe amount.
6. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has virtually rehashed the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and has not even noted the specific grievance ofHUDCO to the quantification ofthe amoimt.
7. We note thatthe adjudicatory process requires an order dated May 12, 2011 passed by a Division Bench ofthis Court in W.P.(C)No.4920/2008 to be taken into accoimt because it records a concession by HUDCO to scale down the interest to 10.5% per annum (simple) as against 16.75% per annum (simple). But since the principal amount was reduced by the Division Bench, it directed that interest charged would be @ 13.75% per annum(simple). Said order was challenged before the Supreme Court and on leave to appeal being granted,CA No.7357-58/2013 was disposed ofby the Supreme Courton September02,2013,with a direction thatthe reportof the chartered accountant appointed by the Supreme Court who had calculated the amount due and as directed by the Division Bench would be considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal,because whereas Natraj claimed that as calculated by the chartered accountant the dues had been cleared, HUDCO claimed otherwise. This aspect of the matter has just not been considered bythe Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
8. We dispose of W.P.(C)No.1286/2016 quashing the impugned order dated May 19, 2015 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissing Appeal No.287/2014 and we restore said appeal filed by HUDCO for fresh adjudication.
9. As regards W.P.(C)No.9107/2015, we find that the Debts Recovery W.P.(C)No.9107/2015&Conn.Matter Page3of[4] u Appellate Tribunal has dismissed Inward No.313/2015 filed by Natraj challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal holding thaton May 19,2015 appeal filed by HUDCO had been dismissed.
10. Now, appeal filed by HUDCO raised grievance that the amount decreed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is low. Appeal filed by Natraj raised the grievance that the amount decreed is high. Dismissal of the former appeal could notresultin dismissal ofthe latter appeal.
11. Thus, W.P.(C)No.9107/2015 is also disposed of, quashing the order dated June 12, 2015. Inward No.313/2015 filed by Natraj is also restored for adjudication before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
12. Appeal No.287/2014 filed by HUDCO and Inward No.313/2015 filed by Natraj shall be decided by DebtsRecovery Appellate Tribunaltogether.
13. No costs in both writ petitions. CM No.20695/2015 in W.P.fCI No.9107/2015 Dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. MUKTA GUPTA,J. FEBRUARY 19,2016 mamta W.P.(C)No.9107/2015&Conn.Matter Page4of[4]