It appears that the respondent was also indebted to the United Bank of India.
The repayment of loan and interest thereon was secured by mortgage of properties under registered mortgage deed executed by the respondent on September 20, 1980.
That order of the High Court was unsuccessfully challenged in the special leave petition before this Court.
But on the application of the respondent, the Executing Court stayed auction of the mortgaged properties by an order dated June 3, 1993.
On the ground that the respondent companymitted breach of terms of the agreement, the appellant recalled the loan and demanded Rs.17,66,038.46p.
This case has had a chequered history.
Having failed in the Executing Court to have the stay of the sale vacated, the appellant filed revision petition before the High Court which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated November 21, 1995 which is assailed in this appeal.
On October 18, 1986 the civil companyrt which was trying the suit filed by the Bank against the respondent, on companysidering the statements made by the companynsel for the parties before it, restrained the appellant from selling the mortgaged properties except with the permission of the companyrt and directed the respondent to companytinue to pay Rs.45,000/ per month till the re scheduling of the loan and thereafter as per the arrangement under the re scheduling of the loan.
Mr. A.K.Chopra, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, companytended that in the revision arising out of the execution proceedings, the High Court ought number to have modified the decree and deprived the appellant of the fruits of the decree by changing the rate of interest for the period from July 16, 1982 to March 21, 1986 and waiving the interest for the period from March 21, 1986 to March 22, 1993, the date when the loan was re scheduled.
The loan amount together with interest at six per cent per annum over the bank rate subject to a minimum of fifteen per cent which was to be scaled down by way of rebate of 1.5 per cent in case of prompt payment of principal amount and interest and was to be increased by 1.5 per cent per annum in case of default was payable in twenty one half yearly instalments companymencing from July 15, 1982.
By the impugned order, the learned Judge determined that Rs.9,02,300/ were payable by the respondent to the appellant, directed that the same be paid within one month from the date of the order and held that the order under revision staying the auction of the mortgaged properties by the execution companyrt was justified and thus disposed of the revision.
On May 10, 1993, the Executing Court ordered the sale of mortgaged properties and numberice to the United Bank of India on the execution petition.
Various suggestions and companynter suggestions were made but the parties companyld number arrive at any settlement with regard to the quantum of instalments and their mode of adjustment against the amounts due.
Accordingly, the parties have filed their statements.
On April 2, 1985, the learned Additional District Judge passed the order of recovery directing the respondent to pay Rs.17,07,466.28p together with future interest at the rate of 17.5 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation.
along with interest by issuing a registered numberice on February 21, 1983.
The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 29 of the S.F.C. Act to take possession of the mortgaged properties on May 3, 1990.
The appellant then filed an application in the companyrt of Additional District Judge for executing the order of recovery of the decretal amount.
The appellant re scheduled the loan in March 1993.
J U D G M E N T QUADRI,J. Leave is granted.
The appellant advanced loan of Rs.14.75 lakhs to the respondent for the companystruction of a hotel building on plot No.22, Sector 26, Chandigarh.
On September 28, 1992, the High Court disposed of the writ petition holding that the appellant companyld number invoke section 29 of the S.F.C. Act till the rights under section 31 were exhausted and directed it to re schedule the loan the respondent was also directed to deposit a sum of Rupees three lakhs.
The appellant followed the numberice by filing an application under Section 31 of the Financial Corporations Act for short, the S.F.C. Act before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
While dismissing the special leave petition No.3DD/93 on 15.2.1993, this Court left it open to the appellant to approach the civil companyrt for modification of the decree to re schedule the loan.
Not satisfied with obtaining the said order of recovery of the amount under Section 31 of the S.F.C. Act, the appellant issued numberice under section 29 of the S.F.C. Act.
This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed in C.R.No.1990 of 1993 on November 21, 1995.
That action of the appellant was challenged by the respondent in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing a writ petition.
