- (1.) THE appeal No. R-723/07 has been preferred by U. P. Warehousing Corporation-appellant against the judgment dated 1st September, 2006 passed by the D. R. T. , Lucknow in T. A. No. 164/02 for issuing direction for the recovery of Ks. 1,42,41,799. 66 together with pendente lite and future interest @ 15. 5% per annum with quarterly rest from 18th December, 1997 till the date of realization of entire amount from the defendant. The other appeal Sr. No. 23 of 2007 has not been registered as yet and has been filed by State Government against the same judgment dated 1st September, 2006. As the controversy required to be decided in both these cases, is the same, both these appeals are being taken up together for hearing and disposal.
(2.) IN short the history giving rise to these appeals is thaf the respondent Punjab National Bank filed a regular suit No. 158/98 against the present appellant and State of U. P. before the Court of Civil Judge, Malihabad (Senior Division), Lucknow for recovery of Rs. 1,42,41,799. 66 together with interest and cost etc. Above suit was transferred to the Tribunal in pursuant to Act of 1993 i. e. RDDBFI Act, 1993 and there the case was numbered as T. A. No. 158/98. Subsequently the above case was transferred to the learned D. R. T. , Lucknow where it was numbered as T. A. No. 164/02. In short the case set up by the bank was that the U. P. Warehousing Corporation was sanctioned and paid a sum of Rs. 90. 00 lacs on 15th July, 1989, Rs. 72. 00 lacs on 7th February, 1990 and Rs. 2. 97 lacs on 12th October, 1990 in accordance with the terms and conditions and rate of interest given in the agreement. State of U. P. stood as guarantor for this loan. It was pleaded by the bank that amount of loan was not liquidated by the aforesaid Corporation and consequently the proceedings for recovery were initiated. State of U. P. has also been impleaded as a defendant and for recovery. State of U. P. has been also held to be liable and for this reason State of U. P. has preferred the other appeal.
(3.) THE above suit was contested by the defendant-Corporation on the several grounds including the main ground of charging of enhanced rate of interest without any justification and against the guidelines for the rate of interest.;