The court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion in awarding interest and recognized the right of the petitioners to seek alternative remedy for challenging the additional claim made by the bank.

Ramendra Jain, J.

1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1821; and 17317 of 2015, filed by M/s Amar International and Smt. Sanyogita Shoor, one of its partners; and Union Bank of India, respectively, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as the common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions.

2. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 1821 of 2015. In the year 1997, petitioner No.1 M/s Amar International, a partnership firm, availed credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 35 lacs from respondent No.1 bank, against mortgage of some properties, i.e. residential house of petitioner No.2 and proforma respondents No.2 and 3, as well as factory, land and building of proforma respondent No.2. However, for various reasons, including the acute financial crunch in the market, petitioner No.1 firm could not adhere to the financial discipline of the respondent bank. Therefore, the respondent bank filed OA No. 148 of 2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') for recovery of Rs. 45,99,510.88 along with interest @ 16.25% per annum with quarterly rests, which was contested by the petitioners and proforma respondents No.2 to 5. According to the petitioners, since the respondent bank was threatening to take physical possession of the residential house of petitioner No.2 and proforma respondents No.2 and 3 under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'), therefore, they requested the respondent bank to sell the mortgaged factory, land and building, instead of taking physical possession of their residential house. On refusal of the respondent bank to accept this offer of petitioner No.2 and proforma respondents No.2 and 3, during the pendency of OA, they filed CWP No. 19256 of 2009, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2009. LPA No. 1432 of 2009 filed by them met the same fate being withdrawn. The said OA of the respondent bank was allowed by the DRT vide order dated 02.03.2012 (Annexure P-11) holding the petitioners and proforma respondents No.2 and 3 liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 45,99,510.99 to the respondent bank jointly and severally with costs along with current and future interest @ 16.25% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the OA till the date of realisation.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners and proforma respondents No.2 and 3 preferred appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRAT'), which was partly allowed by the DRAT vide order dated 08.10.2014 (Annexure P-15), reducing the interest from 16.25% per annum with quarterly rests to 13% per annum simple for the period pendente lite and future till realisation. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued a letter dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P-16) to petitioner No.2 and proforma respondent No.2 being partners of petitioner No.1 firm, asking them to make payment of balance amount of Rs. 17,31,823.14.

4. By way of CWP No. 1821 of 2015, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.10.2014 (Annexure P-15) passed by the DRAT, to the extent of awarding pendente lite and future interest @ 13% per annum on the amount found due by the DRT vide its order dated 02.03.2012 (Annexure P-11) from the date of filing of OA No. 143 of 2000 till realisation, with a prayer to reduce the pendente lite and future interest. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P-16) issued by the respondent bank claiming exaggerated amount in an arbitrary and illegal manner.

5. On the other hand, the respondent bank, in its CWP No. 17317 of 2015, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.10.2014 passed by the DRAT, modifying the order dated 02.0