R.S. Tripathi, J. (Chairperson) -
(1.) IN this appeal the order dated 13th December, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow is under challenge. This order was passed in T.A. No. 805/02 accepting the pleas of the present respondents for the payment and in full satisfaction under O.T.S. Scheme (3rd Scheme) issued by the R.B.I.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the history giving rise to this appeal is that one suit No. 1526/ 96 was filed before the Civil Court of Ghaziabad for recovery of Rs. 12,16,380.25. By virtue of enactment of RDDBFI Act, 1993, the above suit was transferred to D.R.T., Allahabad where it was given a new number as T.A. No. 1045/2000. After establishment of D.R.T. at Lucknow, the above T.A. was transferred to D.R.T., Lucknow. During the proceedings the appellant Bank and the respondents compromised the case for a sum of Rs. 16.12 lacs. The respondents deposited a sum of Rs. 2,66,120/ - with the Bank and the matter was decided on the basis of above compromise. According to the appellant Bank after compromise, the respondents committed default in payment in breach of the terms of compromise. Therefore, as per the default clause of the compromise, the Bank was entitled to recover the entire amount of more than Rs. 40.00 lees from the respondent. The respondents with a view to take the advantage of revised guidelines of R.B.I. in the form of O.T.S. (3rd Scheme) submitted a proposal for compromise as per the guidelines of O.T.S. (3rd Scheme). By that time the respondents had deposited a sum of Rs. 8,62,300/ - and had further deposited a sum of Rs. 1,46,300/ - pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal. After considering the rival submissions, the learned Tribunal taking into account O.T.S. (3rd Scheme) issued by the R.B.I, on 29th January, 2003 passed impugned order giving reasons therefor, holding that the respondents were entitled for the settlement in accordance with the revised guidelines issued on 29th January, 2003 by the R.B.I, and passed the impugned order observing that proposal submitted by the respondents was acceptable and the Transfer Application No. 805/02 was disposed of observing that the Bank had already received the amount of non -performing assets the appellant Bank has challenged this order raising the following questions before this Tribunal:
(a) Whether the D.R.T. has any power to settle the case suo motu?
(b) Whether the D.R.T. has power to go against the terms of earlier compromise, which was settled between the parties and was reduced into writing, when the Bank had not accepted the so -called settlement as per O.T.S. (3rd Scheme)?
(c) Whether the present case is covered by O.T.S. (3rd Scheme) was of 2003 in the facts and circumstances of this case?
The respondents have filed their replies in this appeal and have pleaded that previous compromise was for a sum of Rs. 16.12 lacs but this compromise was revoked by the Bank itself. In the meantime O.T.S. 3rd Scheme was issued by the R.B.I. According to the respondents, the respondent -company was closed in the year 1994, therefore, the terms of compromise dated 17th April, 2000 could not be complied with, although the respondents managed to deposit Rs. 4.16 lacs in pursuant to above compromise. It is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that in the Court at Mathura a fresh compromise proposal under R.B.I. O.T.S. 3rd Scheme was filed by the respondents and as per the terms of this compromise, the total amount of Rs. 8,62,300/ - stood paid and the Hon'ble Tribunal accepted the plea of the respondents for O.T.S. 3rd Scheme compromise. Therefore, now the plea raised from the side of the appellant Bank has no force. They have also pleaded that apart from Rs. 4.16 lacs, they deposited Rs. 1.00 lakh in connection with settlement as per directions of the D.R.T. and this amount was received by the appellant Bank. The D.R.T. according to the respondents found that despite opportunity having been given to the appellant Bank to file written objection against the application dated 26th August, 2004 for compromise, but no such objection was filed by the Bank. The D.R.T. under the circumstances, advised the parties to settle the matter in the light of the proposal of the respondents, but Bank failed to carry out the directions of the D.R.T. and ultimately finding no written reply to the application for compromise, under the O.T.S. 3rd Scheme, the learned D.R.T. took the view that the case was covered under the O.T.S. 3rd Scheme and passed the impugned order, therefore, this appeal has no force.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Bank and learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 at length and have also gone through the relevant guidelines issued by the R.B.I, on 27th July, 2000, 10th April, 2001 and 29th January, 2003 available on the file. At the very outset the question of payment of Court -fee has been raised in this appeal. In the opinion of this Tribunal, Court -fee is payable on the basis of amount of controversy and the same has been done, therefore, this controversy should not detain us for a long. Further the matter of Court -fee is in between the person paying the Court -fee and the Government and 3rd party has nothing to do with it.;