S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING order dated 15.03.2013 in Appeal No. 09 of 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, M/s. Mayur Lime Products Limited -respondent No. 1, for the production of hydrated lime pozzolana, availed term loan of Rs. 99.58 lacs from the petitioner -HUDCO. For availing the term loan, the respondent No. 1 created equitable mortgage by depositing the original title deeds in favour of the petitioner -HUDCO. The loan agreement was executed on 23.02.1987 and the loan was disbursed in full to the respondent No. 1. On the request of the respondent No. 1 for availing loan of Rs. 20 lacs as working capital, the petitioner -HUDCO permitted second charge on the mortgaged property in favour of respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 1 miserably failed and neglected to repay the term loan and the petitioner -HUDCO provided a fresh repayment schedule vide letter dated 02.04.1988. A recall notice dated 01.03.1993 was issued to the respondent No. 1 and vide letter dated 25.08.2003, the respondent No. 1 was directed to make payment of the entire dues amounting to Rs. 1,98,21,344/ - within 7 days. When the respondents failed to repay the outstanding dues, a mortgage suit being, M.S. No. 63 of 1996 was filed claiming Rs. 3,38,664.92/ - as on 31.03.1996 with further pendente -lite interest @ 13.75% p.a. with half -yearly rests alongwith 2 1/2% penal interest p.a. from 01.04.1996, till realisation of the entire loan. The mortgage suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and it came to be numbered as P.T. Case No. 49 of 2002 in which, final order was passed on 24.11.2011 whereby, a certificate for Rs. 3,03,38,664.92 was issued to the petitioner. The Debts Recovery Tribunal awarded pendente -lite and future interest @10% p.a. simple from 01.04.1996, till its realisation. Aggrieved, the petitioner -HUDCO preferred Appeal No. 09 of 2012 claiming pendente -lite and future interest @ 13.75% p.a. with half -yearly rests alongwith penal interest @ 2 1/2% p.a. The appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2013 and therefore, order dated 15.03.2013 has been challenged by the petitioner -HUDCO in the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents on record.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that power under Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 must be exercised in accordance with the settled principles for exercise of discretion by the Tribunal/Court however, in the present case, reduction of interest to 10% p.a. simple is arbitrary. It is submitted that the ground that the interest rate has declined considerably, cannot be a ground to award lesser interest despite express contractual rate of interest.;