W.P.(C.) No. 2836/2018

Page 1 of 17

$~15.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Date of Decision: 02.12.2021

%

W.P.(C) 2836/2018

KAUSHALAYA DEVI AND ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr.

Sanjeev

Bhandari

&

Mr.Shailendra Ojha, Advocates.

versus

DELHI NAGRIK SEHKARI BANK LTD.

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)

1.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and proceed to

dispose of the present writ petition.

2.

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to seek the

setting aside of the orders dated 15.05.2015 & 28.06.2017 passed by the

Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (DCT), Delhi. The petitioners also seek remand

of the case back to the learned DCT, Delhi, or before the Sole Arbitrator,

who has passed the award dated 24.02.2014 for deciding the amount

outstanding/ rate of interest for the delayed period, afresh. The petitioners

also seek refund of excess amount of Rs.1,11,23,272/- deposited by the

petitioners “under protest”, for release of their title documents.

2021:DHC:3927-DB

W.P.(C.) No. 2836/2018

Page 2 of 17

3.

The background facts are that the respondent/ Delhi Nagrik Sehkari

Bank Ltd. sanctioned an amount of Rs.3.20 Crores as loan to the petitioners

in early October 2009 @ 12.5% per annum. The term of the loan was

extended by one year on 28.10.2010. On 31.03.2012, the account was

declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) showing an outstanding balance

of Rs.3,19,78,753/-. On 18.10.2012, the respondent bank issued a notice

under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for an amount of

Rs.3,41,97,368/- along with interest @ 17% per annum (15% + 2% penal

interest) from 01.10.2012 till the date of full & final payment.

4.

We may note that the interest was claimed only as simple interest and

not as compound interest, much less, compounded on monthly rests. We

have noted this fact since this has a bearing – as would be evident from

further narration.

5.

The endeavour of the petitioners to stall further proceedings initiated

by the respondent Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act,

2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) failed. Court Receiver was

appointed to take over possession of the property. Petitioners’ S.A. No.

92/2013 was then pending before the DRT. On 23.03.2013, a settlement

was arrived at between the parties, whereunder the petitioners agreed to pay

Rs.3.70 Crores, which included the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs deposited by the

petitioners before the DRT. The petitioners were required to deposit the

settlement amount by 31.08.2013. Consequently, on 30.05.2013, S.A.

No.92/2013 filed by the petitioners before the DRT was disposed of on the

2021:DHC:3927-DB

W.P.(C.) No. 2836/2018

Page 3 of 17

ground of settlement and on deposit of Rs. 1 Crore in terms of the

settlement. However, the petitioners defaulted and did not comply with the

aforesaid settlement.

6.

The respondent bank – being the cooperative bank, invoked

arbitration under Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act to

recover its dues. During its pendency, the petitioners entered into another

settlement with the respondent Bank, undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.1.6

Crores on or before 31.03.2014. This settlement took into account the

amounts already paid & deposited by the petitioners.

7.

The Arbitral Tribunal passed the award dated 24.02.2014 on the basis

of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The relevant extract from

the said award reads as follows:

“

AWARD

Court that the two parties have reached an understanding and

signed an agreement to that effect on 17.02.14 and following

the agreement, the matter may be considered as settled for the

purpose of arbitration. The agreement was examined

2021: