Notice is accepted by Mr. Himanshu Munshi, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent.
The appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras by filing a civil revision petition challenging the debt recovery certificate, the order of proclamation of sale and the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Officer.
on Rs.
As regards the rate of interest, the High Court observed that the appellants may raise this aspect before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, for short, the Appellate Tribunal , if so advised.
The appellants then preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and since it was barred by time, they also prayed for companydonation of delay in filing the same.
The bank levied execution of the decree wherein two properties belonging to the first appellant were sold and a sum of Rs.
On May 7, 2004 before this Court an amount of Rs.16 lakhs was handed over by the appellants to the bank by way of bank drafts.
16 lakhs which was paid to the bank by way of bank drafts on May 7, 2004.
During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for short, the 1993 Act came into force and the execution proceedings were transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai for short, the Tribunal .
15, 66,731.49 with future interest 18 p.a.
as reflected in the statement Annexure R1 on the remaining amount after adjustment of Rs.
4,07,000/ was realized from that sale.
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal did number err in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and accordingly dismissed the revision petition on December 23, 2003.
As regards the statement Annexure R1 annexed with the companynter affidavit by the bank, learned companynsel submitted that interest calculated therein 6 was an error on the part of the Assistant General Manager, Circle Office, Madurai The short companytroversy that survives for companysideration is whether the submission made on behalf of the appellants to pay off the banks outstandings as per the statement Annexure R1 merits acceptance or number.
on Rs.
On January 7, 1986, a preliminary decree was passed by the trial companyrt against the appellants ex parte, as prayed for by the bank, and one months time was given for payment.
The appellants then approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
11,95, 200/ Rupees eleven lakhs ninety five thousand and two hundred only with 18 interest on the amount upto the date of the decree and 6 interest on the principal amount.
However, the Appellate Tribunal was number companyvinced by the explanation put forth by the appellants and dismissed the appeal on July 2, 2003 on the ground of delay.
The bank filed companynter affidavit in opposition to SLP on July 23, 2004.
On November 29, 2004, leave was granted and interim order was directed to remain operative.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing by us, the learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants desire to put an end to the litigation by making payment of the outstandings as on date on the basis of the statement Annexure R1 submitted by the bank before this Court along with the companynter affidavit.
Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks, Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
It is from this order that the present appeal has arisen.
On April 26, 2000, the Tribunal issued recovery certificate in favour of the bank for a sum of Rs.
15,60,562.75 and as per the said decree it was ordered that the bank is entitled to interest prescribed under Order 34 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It appears that pursuant to the recovery certificate dated April 26, 2000, initially an order of attachment of the judgment debtors two properties was passed on August 9, 2002 and then the order of proclamation of sale was made on October 11, 2002.
The bank drafts are accepted by the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondent without prejudice.
On November 12, 1986, an ex parte final decree was passed against the appellants in terms of the preliminary decree.
11,95,200/ from the date of decree till the date of realization with companyts and for sale of the properties mentioned in the schedule.
16 lakhs by way of bank drafts to the respondent bank.
Pending disposal of the matter by this Court the attachment will companytinue but numberfurther steps to be taken for sale of the petitioners property.
The Debt Recovery Officer fixed November 15, 2002 as the date for auction of these two properties.
14,06,152.80 with interest and companyts before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.
The proceedings before the Tribunal also remained ex parte.
Pertinently, the appellants case before the Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court was that the Principal Sub Court, Madurai had passed the final decree on November 12, 1986 against them for Rs.
11, 95,200/ from the date of decree till the date of realization as per the final decree.
M. Lodha, J. The judgment debtors are in appeal, by special leave.
Indian Bank respondent for short, the bank sued the appellants for recovery of a sum of Rs.
