Decided on April 30,2003



K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)THE 1st respondent-Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 33/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against, (1) M/s. VSA Ledermode; (2) Mr. O.P. Arora (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant/2nd defendant'); and (3) Mr. Vishal Arora for the recovery of Rs. 4,19,80,709/- with subsequent interest and costs jointly and severally from them. THE respondent-Bank also prayed that in the event of their failure to pay the amount, the hypothecated goods, machinery and the mortgaged property be sold for realisation of the amount. THE respondent-Bank further prayed for the attachment before judgment of the mortgaged property. According to the respondent-Bank, the 1st defendant is a firm, of which defendants 2 and 3 are partners, engaged in the business of import and export of readymade leather garments, and for that business the respondent-Bank granted the loan facilities as indicated in the O.A., for which the defendants had executed the documents as mentioned in the O.A. including a letter mortgaging the property. According to the plaintiff, the defendants, who availed the facilities, did not adhere to financial discipline and after application of periodical interest from time-to-time a sum of Rs. 4,19,80,709/- is due as on date of suit with interest up to 8.1.1998. THE respondent-Bank also has averred that the appellant/2nd defendant has created a mortgage over the property bearing No. E-1 /13, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
(2.)On notice/summons the appellant/2nd defendant entered appearance and moved an application for directing the Bank to furnish information/documents since, according to him, in the absence of such information/documents he will not be in a position to file appropriate reply to contest the claim of the Bank.
But, in the meanwhile, the respondent-Bank and the 3rd defendant for himself and as partner of the 1st defendant moved a joint application for compromise wherein the terms of the compromise have been set out in detail. The 3rd defendant (who is the 3rd respondent in this appeal) and the Senior Manager of the respondent-Bank filed their respective affidavits in support thereof. On 4.10.2001, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the impugned order in terms of the compromise. In this impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT after referring to the joint application and the claim in the O.A. observed that the respondent-Bank and the defendants 1 and 3 have entered into a compromise under which the respondent-Bank has agreed to receive Rs. 2.84 crores from defendants 1 and 3 in full and final satisfaction of its claim against all the three defendants.

(3.)HE also noticed the following terms and conditions :
(1) That out of the compromise-amount, the Bank had already received Rs. 1.14 crores from the defendants 1 and 3.

(2) That the balance of Rs. 1.70 crores has been agreed to be paid by the defendants in the following manner :

(a) Rs. 140 lakhs shall be paid in seven equal quarterly instalments of Rs. 20 lakhs each from September, 2001 to 31st March, 2003,

(b) The instalment of Rs. 20 lakhs due in September, 2001 shall be paid on or before 30.6.2003 with 15% interest from 1.9.2001 till the date of payment,

(c) The balance of Rs. 30 lakhs shall be paid by defendants 1 and 3 by 30.6.2003,

(d) The entire balance of compromise-amount together with the interest shall be paid by defendants 1 and 3 latest by 30.6.2003,

(e) In case defendants 1 and 3 failed to pay the balance within the stipulated period, the respondent-Bank is entitled to recover the entire amount of Rs. 4,19,80,709/- with costs and interest @ 19.38% with quarterly rests from defendants 1 and 3.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.