Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 403
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
ROCKLINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - APPELLANT
VERSUS
DOHA BANK QSC & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.460 OF 2023 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 16537 OF 2021
Decided On : 24-04-2023
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Mrs. Aditi Deshpande Parkhi, Adv. Mr. Shivam Dube, Adv. Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajeev K Panday, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Mr. R.s. Nagar, Adv. Mr. Arun Nagar, Adv. Mr. Roop Chaudhary, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
In view of long-standing pending litigation inter se parties to lis, plea of limitation cannot be allowed to stand in way of determination of applicant's right and entitlement of monetary claims on merits.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XX Rule 12 – Mesne profit – Setting aside sale of property by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Applicant deposited huge amounts as part of auction bid in year 2007 – Applicant is entitled to interest – In view of long-standing pending litigation inter se parties to lis, plea of limitation cannot be allowed to stand in way of determination of applicant's right and entitlement of monetary claims on merits – Issue of limitation shall be deemed to have been closed – Appellate authority shall decide appeal preferred by applicant strictly on merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Present Miscellaneous Application is filed seeking clarification of the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition No.16537/2021 titled Rockline Construction Company v. Doha Bank QSC & Ors., whereby a Judgement and Order of the High Court of Bombay upholding setting aside sale of a property by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai was not interfered with.
Findings of Court:
Appellate authority shall decide the appeal preferred by the applicant strictly on merits, in accordance with the law, expeditiously and because each day’s delay would only entail loss by way of the addition of amount payable as interest, shall decide the same within a period of two months. All parties shall fully cooperate.
Result : Miscellaneous Application disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
(SANJAY KAROL, J.)
1. The present Miscellaneous Application is filed seeking clarification of the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition No.16537/2021 titled Rockline Construction Company v. Doha Bank QSC & Ors., whereby a Judgement and Order of the High Court of Bombay upholding the setting aside sale of a property by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai was not interfered with. The applicant has prayed for the following relief:
“a. Clarify the Order dated 12.05.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court to the extent of fixing the rate of interest at which the amount deposited by the applicant in 2007 is to be refunded, and also mesne profit, if any to be deducted from the said amount to be refunded to the applicant.”
2. The auction sale confirmed in favour of the applicant M/s. Rockline Construction Company on 16th May 2007 was set aside with the applicant entitled to a refund of the entire sale amount along with the accrued interest, if any, after deducting the mesne profits and/or losses. There has been longstanding litigation inter se the parties regarding this transaction. At this juncture, it is observed that the present case has a chequered history, but for brevity, only relevant orders are being referred to.
3. The order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in Miscellaneous Appeal bearing No. 303/2010 titled as “Oman International Bank S.A.O.G. v. M/s Rockline Construction Co. & Anr.”, holding the applicant entitled to a refund of the amount, is extracted as under:
“(1) The appeal is allowed with no orders as to costs. The order of the DRT is set aside and order of the Recovery Officer has been restored so far the Original Application is concerned.
(2) The Recovery Officer is directed to return Rs.1 Crore deposited by 2nd Respondent Mahendra Kumar Kawad with accrued interest within 7 days from the copy or receipt of the order.
(3) The Original Applicant/1st respondent is also entitled to withdraw the entire sale amount with accrued interest, if any, (after deducting mesne profits or loss) for his wrongful purpose on surrendering the entire possession of the property to the Bank.
(4) The mesne profits can be ascertained by appointing the Advocate/Counsel before the DRT on the application filed by the respective parties.
(5) The Bank is directed to take appropriate steps to recover the amount as per the procedure known to law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4. It is not in dispute that the said order attained finality with the passing of the order dated 12.05.2022 by this Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by Rockline Construction Company (supra). It is a matter of record that much prior thereto, the applicant had already moved an application seeking a refund of the amount in terms of the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in which vide order dated 13.07.2021, the subject matter of the present application, passed by the Recovery OfficerI, Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunal No.1, the applicant was held entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum. This is against the applicant's claim for interest on such rate and terms as normally govern business transactions. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
“7. Observations :
7.1 From the records it is observed that CH Bank has taken/charged interest @15% in the said loan account. It appears that similarly bank earns interest on the money by lending and it may have also used that money Rs.9.56 crore in further lending that would have been fetched interest over and above 6 percent ranging between 9% to 15% or above. Hence, it would be in the interest of the equity and justice to allow 9% simple interest on the sale consideration given/deposit made by the erstwhile auction purchaser.
7.2 From 2007 the Amount Rs.9.56 core @ 9% for 14 years would become 216056000.00 (Twenty-One Crores Sixty Lacs Fifty Six Thousand only).
7.3 In view of the above Rs.585808
