WP(C) 4021/2015

Page 1 of 19

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgement delivered on: 23.04.2015

+

WP(C) 4021/2015 & CM 7192/2015

DR. YASHWANT SINGH & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Versus

INDIAN BANK & ANR.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner:

Mr Mohit Chaudhary & Ms Damini Chawla, Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Mr Arshad Chaudhary & Mr Quaisar

Ali, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

1. There are several reliefs sought for in the present writ petition. Shorn

of verbiage the main grievance of the petitioners is, that the respondent no.1,

i.e., the Indian Bank, has taken recourse to the provisions of Securitisation

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act, 2002 (in short 2002 Act), [as amended by the Act of 2012] without the

jurisdictional facts obtaining in the matter. In other words, the petitioners

claim that the regime provided under the 2002 Act could not be triggered till

such time the subject loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset

(in short NPA).

1.1

This submission is based on the provisions of Section 13(2) of the

2002 Act. As to when an asset can be declared as an NPA, reliance is

placed by the petitioners on the two Master Circular issued by the Reserve

2015:DHC:3694

WP(C) 4021/2015

Page 2 of 19

Bank of India (RBI) dated 30.06.2012 and 30.06.2013.

1.2

This plea is supported by the petitioners based on the fact that in an

earlier round, it had approached this court for the same purpose by way of a

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said writ petition

was numbered as WP(C) 2961/2013. This writ petition was withdrawn by

the petitioners who are represented by the very same counsel, who appears

for them today, i.e., Mr Mohit Chaudhary, with liberty to approach the Debt

Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

2. Undoubtedly, the petitioners thereafter approached the DRT, which

according to the petitioners passed an order dated 23.10.2013 in their favour.

By this order, the DRT, inter alia, held that the classification of the account

as NPA, was bad, and consequently directed the respondent no.1 bank to

revise the statement of account; by deleting all objectionable entries; taking

away capitalization effect on penal interest; and re-scheduling the

instalments and, in that process fix the tenure of re-payment upto

31.05.2019, with current rate of interest, sans penal interest.

2.1

The entire exercise was to be carried out within a period of thirty

days, with the obligation put on the petitioners, to continue to make

payments as per the revised schedule.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the loan account was re-structured

on 10.09.2014, whereby they were asked to make payments by 15^th day of

each month. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the first quarter would

have ended on 31.12.2014 and, thus, if this date is taken to be the correct

date, in terms of clause 2.1.3 of Master Circular dated 30.06.2012, the said

account could be declared as an NPA only at the end of the ninety day

period, which, would end on 31.03.2015 and, that too, only if, the interest

due and charged was not serviced fully, within the said time frame.

2015:DHC:3694

WP(C) 4021/2015

Page 3 of 19

3.1

The other contention is, that in any event the revised amount

calculated by respondent no.1 bank, pursuant to the order of the DRT dated

23.10.2013, is wrongly calculated. In this behalf, it is contended that

respondent no.1 bank has not taken into account the contractual rate of

interest and furthermore, has not given credit for amounts paid till

01.12.2009, when it was declared as an NPA for the first time.

3.2

The grievance is also made that the respondent bank had not disclosed

their Bench Prime Lending Rate (BPLR) subsisting since the date of t