INDIAN BANK Vs. T KULASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Bank filed the application before the DRT for recovery of Rs. 11,82,712 against the defendant. THE suit was posted in the Special Drive conducted by DRT as suggested by the applicant Bank as it was a fit case for compromise. THE learned Presiding Officer, DRT, has stated in his order that in the Special Drive the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 11 lakhs as full and final settlement but the Bank was not agreeable and the Bank wanted Rs. 13.60 lakhs. THE Presiding Officer, DRT, found that the difference between the claim of the Bank and the defendant was Rs. 2.60 lakhs and he suggested to compromise the matter if the defendant agrees to pay Rs. 12 lakhs. THE Presiding Officer, DRT has stated that the defendant agreed and paid this amount of Rs. 12 lakhs and the balance amount towards the claim of the Bankis only Rs. 1.60 lakhs. THE Presiding Officer, DRT invoking Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDB&F) Amended Act 1/2001, by reducing the rate of interest found that the defendant has satisfied the claim of the applicant Bank and the defendant is liable to be discharged and accordingly discharged the defendant and ordered the return of the documents of title deeds to the defendant. Aggrieved against that order the Bank has come forward with this appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Bank submits that the appellant Bank never consented to pass decree for Rs. 12 lakhs and even though the matter was heard in the Special Drive conducted by the DRT and as the defendant never agreed for Rs. 12 lakhs, the Presiding Officer, DRT has no right to pass such order as there, was no consent on the part of the defendant for the sum of Rs. 12 lakhs. He further submitted that without the consent of the Bank the order passed by the DRT is not proper and the Bank is deprived of much benefit and the Bank is deprived of its benefit on these transactions and the Bank had to incur loss and the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT is not sustainable. He further submitted that there is no basis at all for settling the amount of Rs. 12 lakhs.

(3.) IT is seen from the order of the DRT that the suit was posted in the Special Drive conducted by DRT it is seen from the order of Presiding Officer, DRT that the Bank wanted Rs. 13.60 lakhs. The matter was also compromised before the DRT and the Presiding Officer suggested the amount of Rs. 12 lakhs by way of compromise. The defendant had agreed and paid a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs. The Presiding Officer, DRT has found that as the applicant Bank wanted Rs. 13.60 lakhs and as the defendant has paid Rs. 12 lakhs the difference amount is only Rs. 1.60 lakhs and so by invoking Section 19(2) he has passed that order discharging the defendant from his liability. Section 19(20) of amended Act reads as follows: