- (1.) Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the impugned order dated 29.01.2015 (Annex./18) passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'the DRAT') and has further prayed for staying the proceedings in Original Application No.10/2014 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the DRT'). A further prayer is made for allowing application of the petitioners under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') with other ancillary reliefs.
(2.) The facts apposite for the purpose of this writ petition are that the respondent-Bank submitted an Original Application (for short 'the OA') before the DRT, Jaipur under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act of 1993') seeking issuance of recovery certificate for the amount of Rs.56,44,88,716/- (Rupees fifty six crores forty four lacs eighty eight thousand and seven hundred sixteen only) as principal amount as outstanding on 20.11.2013 with interest, costs and expenses thereon. That apart, following other reliefs were also prayed for:- "ii) award interest pendentelite and future at rate of interest per annum with monthly rests on the Principal amount relating to the facilities stated hereunder in favour of the applicant-Bank against all the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally from 21.11.2013 till the date of actual and final realization besides all costs and expenses incurred/to be incurred: JUDGEMENT_19_LAWS(RAJ)11_2015_1.html
(3.) The OA preferred by the respondent-Bank was registered as OA No.10/2014. On receipt of the notices of aforesaid OA, the petitioners preferred an application dated 30.04.2014 under Section 8 of the Act of 1996 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1993 which was registered as IA No.70/2014. In the application, it is, inter alia, averred by the petitioners that hypothecation agreement dated 10.06.2010 stipulates reference of dispute arising under the agreement to the arbitration by virtue of clause 9.2 and 11.2 and such award and decision given shall be valid and binding on the parties. By romping in aforesaid clauses of hypothecation agreement, the petitioners sought dismissal of OA in view of Section 8 of the Act of 1996 and craved for referring the dispute to the arbitration. The respondent-Bank without filing reply to IA straight away argued it. The learned DRT by relying on clause 11.2 of hypothecation agreement dated 10.06.2010 and a Full Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh Bakshi, 2013 1 ILR(Del) 583 allowed IA No.70/2014 of the petitioners and dismissed the OA filed by the respondent-Bank by its order dated 16.05.2014.;