Decided on April 17,2014



Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) AGGRIEVED against the order passed by DRT -I, Chandigarh, the Bank has filed this appeal. Grievance of the Bank is that the Tribunal below without any justification has held that the Bank is not entitled to recover any further amount from the applicant/respondent qua the property in question. As per the Tribunal below, the dispute with regard to any recoverable amount in another loan is pending in Civil Court, but no material was placed on record of the Tribunal in this case. On this basis, directions were issued to deliver title deeds of the said property to the applicant in this M.A. within 30 days. This Tribunal, while issuing notice, had suspended the operation of the impugned order.
(2.) I have heard Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the notice under Section 13(2) issued in this case, which was for an amount of Rs. 31,23,607.51, which is the loan amount in both the accounts. The respondent/applicant has statedly deposited the entire amount for which notice was issued. Strangely, the Tribunal below after passing this impugned order passed further order relieving the appellant from the liability to pay interest on the amount which the respondent/applicant had deposited. The Bank would have grievance against this order as well and rather would contend that an amount of Rs. 13,49,980/ - is recoverable from the respondent/applicant by calculating interest on the amount which was deposited by the respondent/applicant. As on date of deposit, interest due was Rs. 5,21,705/ - liability of which the respondent was relieved. The Counsel for the Bank would contend that as per the calculation which is placed on record the amount due would be Rs. 13,49,980/ - as on 31.3.2014.
(3.) I am bit surprised at the manner in which the Tribunal had first passed the order that no amount was due and later on an application moved by the respondent gave him benefit of the interest which was payable. While passing order judicious and judicial approach is required to be adopted. No order can be passed ignoring the legal parameters. Entertaining application and relieving a borrower to discharge liability to pay interest may convey some wrong signals. Such brazen approach is not generally called for. Change of Counsel, who filed this appeal, and making another Counsel to appear to argue the appeal is a noticeable factor. A judicial forum has to guard itself against conveying any impression which may erode the confidence of litigant. In a country like ours the people consider the Judges only second to God. Efforts have to be made to strengthen this belief and nothing should be done even inadvertently which would make the people to raise their eyebrows. Glorious name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly.;

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