Shamim Ahmed & Anr v. Vijya Bank

Delhi High Court · 23 Dec 2015 · 2015:DHC:11603
G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
W.P.(C) 11794/2015
2015:DHC:11603
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal's order charging 15% simple interest but allowed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs and submit a repayment proposal for sympathetic consideration by the bank.

Full Text
Translation output
$-06.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 11794/2015
JUDGMENT
dated 23'^'^December, 2015 SHAMIM AHMED & ANR Petitioners
Through : Mr.Rajan Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
VIJYA BANK Respondent
Through : Mr.Amitesh Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J {ORAL)
CM APPL. 31338/2015

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 11794/2015

3. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioners under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India seeking a direction to set aside the order dated 14.9.2015 passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short Appellate TribunaV) and the order dated 12.2.2015 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill (in short ''Tribunar). The petitioners also seek a direction to quash the order toregularize the account ofthe petitioner with reasonable rate of interest.

4. It may be noticed that by the impugned order dated 14.9.2015, the appeal of the petitioners herein was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, however, W.P.(C)No.ll794/2015 Page 1of[3] 2015:DHC:11603 the petitioners were directed to discharge the entire liability within a period of six months by paying simple interest at the rate of 15%, per annum.

5. The only ground urged by the petitioners in the present writ petition is that the respondent-Bank should be directed to charge simple interest from the petitioners at the rate of 12%, per annum, instead of simple interest at the rate of 15%, per annum, as awarded by the Appellate Tribunal, having regard to the financial crisis being faced by the petitioners.

6. Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why Rule nisi be not issued. Learned counsel for respondent enters appearance on an advance copy and accepts notice. Counsel for the respondent submits that the liability of the petitioner has mounted. Counsel further submits that the concession granted to the petitioners in the past was also not honoured by them. -7. After some hearing in the matter, counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners shall deposit Rs.5.00 lakhs on or before 2.1.2016 with the respondent-Bank. In case the sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs is deposited by the petitioners with the respondent Banlc, the Recovery Officer will adjourn the matter for a period of one month to enable the petitioners to give a proposal to the respondent-Bank, which shall be considered by the Bank sympathetically.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also assures the Court that in case the Banlc accepts the proposal ofthe petitioners, the petitioners would adhere to the scheduleof re-payment

9. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of in view ofabove. W.P.(C) No.l1794/2015 2of[3] CM APPL. 31337/2015

10. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, application stands disposed of. 1l.Let a copy of this order be given DASTI to counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master. G.S.SISTANI, J DECEMBER 23, 2015 msr SANGIT^HING]|A^EHGAL,J Cll"! /l-l^ 'r 'I \\> f rC -V--'-'- •'"*' tf.P.fg No. 11794/2015 A- J-- &-y= ?' ^ Page 3 of[3] Jf