The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to condone delay in payment if the grounds for delay justify a departure from the right of the Bank to recover the entire dues, and the decision to condone delay depends on the specific facts of each case.

ORDER :

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the Order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras by which the High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent-Bank had set aside the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) granting extension of time by condoning the delay that has occurred on the part of the appellants in making payment of an agreed amount as per settlement reached by and between the parties in a Lok Adalat.

2. The Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) by the Bank was filed seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 62,96,582.68 (Rupees sixty two lakhs ninety six thousand five hundred eighty two and paise sixty eight only) being the unpaid dues along with interest as on the date of filing of the O.A. Interest at 19.8 % p.a. with quarterly rests from date of filing of the O.A. till date of payment was also prayed for. The total financial accommodation made available to the Bank was to the extent of Rs. 23 lakhs.

3. In the Lok Adalat held on 10.09.2004 the parties had agreed on an amount of Rs. 34.5 lakhs payable within three months. The appellants defaulted and paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs on 8.02.2005 and a further sum of Rs. 35 lakhs on 17.10.2006 in terms of a conditional order passed by the DRAT staying the sale/auction of the mortgaged property. Finally, on 29.10.2006, a further payment of Rs. 3 lakhs was made. In the above manner a sum of Rs. 41 lakhs stood paid by the appellants to the respondent-Bank as on 29.10.2006.

4. Before the DRT, the appellants had sought for extension of time for payment and condonation of delay that had occurred in adhering to the time schedule of payment as agreed to in the Lok Adalat. The DRT dismissed the application which decision was reversed in appeal in DRAT. Thereafter, the said order of the DRAT was questioned by the bank in a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition being allowed by the impugned order the appellants are before us in this appeal.

5. By order dated 7.12.2017 which is in the terms extracted below, we had directed as follows:

“Having heard the learned counsels for the parties we direct the appellants to indicate to us the amount which the appellants would be in a position to offer to finally close the matter. The respondent-Indian Bank will also indicate the amount that the Bank expects to be offered. The said decision of the Bank will be taken at the appropriate level and will be placed before the Court in a sealed cover”.

6. The appellants, pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 7.12.2017, has made an offer of an additional payment of Rs. 10 lakhs by offering a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per day (approx.) for the delay of 320 days that had occurred in making the payment as per the terms of the settlement reached in the Lok Adalat.

7. The respondent-Bank has not come up with any concrete offer and has placed before the Court an extract of the statement of account of the appellants as on date which goes to show that the total dues as per the Bank's statement of account is Rs. 8,17,65,148/- (Rupees eight crore seventeen lakhs sixty five thousand one hundred forty eight only).

8. We have considered the matter. There was undoubtedly some delay in payment of the amount due as per the terms of the settlement reached in the Lok Adalat. It was also agreed by and between the parties that if the terms of payment including the time schedule of payment is not adhered to, the respondent-Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire amount due. The DRAT in the impugned order had considered the matter and had taken the view that even on the face of the express terms between the parties that the bank would have a right to recover the full amount due in the event of default on the part of the appellants, the same was not the only course of action or the sole option and that on the grounds shown for the delay the same is liable to be understood in favour of the borrower. Accordingly, the matter was closed. I