LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD Vs. STAR HOMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have filed this appeal URA-7/2003 for dismissing the Original Application (OA) by modifying the order dated 5.11.2002 in the OA. In this appeal, the appellants contend that the Tribunal ought to have waived the entire interest on the principal amount and the Tribunal ought to have granted relief taking into consideration the loss sustained by the defendants due to the acts and omissions on the part of the applicant Bank and the Bank is also liable to compensate the defendants for the loss and even the Court directions to release the flats on payment were not obeyed by the respondent Bank. THE appellant further contends that the OA is barred by limitation and the equitable mortgages are not valid and the whole transaction of the Bank with the appellant is substantially unfair and only time-barred debts were converted as new demand loan and hence the OA is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) The Bank filed Original Application (OA) against the defendant respondents for the amount due from the defendants for a sum of Rs. 3,22,44,991/-. The Tribunal by order dated 5.11.2002 allowed the OA for Rs. 1,96,72,989/- with interest at 6% per annum thereon from 1.10.2001 till date of the order less Rs. 100,94,000/- plus interest at the same rate. Aggrieved against that order with regard to the disallowed portion of the claim, the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal RA-3/2003.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant-Bank submits that while allowing the OA, the PO. DRT reduced the claim amount to a considerable extent and allowing of the OA for Rs. 1,96,72,989/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 1.10.2001 when the claim amount itself was for Rs. 3,22,44,991 /-, is not proper and without any basis the PO, DRT, has reduced that amount to a large extent and the appellant Bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the OA. COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that the loan was availed by the defendants 1 and 2 on overdraft facility and the alleged conversion of the loan into Demand Loan as contended by the Bank is not correct and the defendants 1 and 2 never signed any Promissory Note and other connected documents and these defendants' signatures were obtained in blank papers by the Bank and those papers have been utilised for the creation of these documents and the conversion of that loan itself is not proper and the PO, DRT has passed Order based on the NPA amount under the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme and the Order passed by the PO, DRT does not warrant any interference by this Appellate Tribunal.