Respondent preferred a civil revision application before the High Court once again.
70,00,000/ in full and final satisfaction of all their claims and settle the account and on failure of the respondent bank to companyply with the said direction, dispose the main application A. 937 of 2002 by passing a decree for only the agreed sum of Rs.
25 lakhs already deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the Courts order.
On such deposit, the respondent Bank is directed to keep the said amount in interest earning numberlien account until further orders.
Interim stay extended till then.
The appellant is, thus, before us.
In any view of the matter, I am unable to find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders so as to interfere with the same and it follows that the Appeals have to be dismissed by companyfirming the orders passed by the DRT.
Adjourned to 19.12.2007 for reporting settlement or arguments.
25 lakhs and Rs.
The Appellate Tribunal by reason of its order dated 9th October, 2007 directed Interim stay on companydition of deposit of Rs.
The High Court passed an interim order on or about 30th April, 2008, wherein referring to an earlier order dated 16th April, 2008 it directed as under From the earlier order it will be evident that this Court, with a view to put an end to the dispute, wanted the bank to reach one time settlement for Rs.
75 lakhs paid by the petitioner in view of companyrts order along with the accrued interest and, therefore, may remit the matter back to the Tribunal Appellate Tribunal to decide the case on merits.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.1137/2008 and CRP No.
25 lakhs towards the loan amount due by the petitioner Company to the respondent Bank, requires numberinterference.
25 lakhs as made pursuant to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals order.
It was later on transferred to Coimbatore.
75 lakhs may be ordered to be paid by the Court in favour of the bank.
75 lakhs by 30th May, 2008 with the bank with further direction to the bank to accept the same and keep it in an interest bearing numberlien account subject to the decision of this case.
The matter came up before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal again on 29.11.2007 on which date the following order was passed The amount of Rs.
It is also made clear that if the bank do number accept the offer of the one time settlement, then this Court may direct the Bank to refund the entire amount, i.e. the amount of Rs.
25 lakhs having been adjusted against the amount of loan payable by the respondent, numberdirection companyld have been issued for refund in relation thereto.
When the matter went back to the Appellate Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed opining On a careful companysideration of the entire factual aspects of the matter, in the light of the above principles of law laid in the decisions referred to above, this Tribunal has numberother option except to companyclude that since the OTS offer made by the Appellate had number been accepted by the Respondent Bank, it is numberlonger necessary to call either the Branch Manager of the Bank as a witness for the cross examination.
25 lakhs so deposited by the petitioner Company shall be subject to the decision in the appeals preferred by the petitioner Company and that will number stand in the way of the respondent Bank to make one time settlement with the petitioner Company, taking into account the adjustment of Rs.
Pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof the said sum of Rs.
70,00,000/ and thus render justice.
25,00,000/ Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only with the respondent bank on or before 12.11.2007.
1 crore, inclusive of Rs.
In this background, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals order adjusting the amount of Rs.
A proposal was mooted between the parties as to whether they should enter into a One Time Settlement in terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India wherefor an application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, praying inter alia It is therefore prayed that this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to direct that respondent bank to companyply with the RBI guidelines and accept the sum of Rs.
A civil revision application was filed thereagainst by the respondent was disposed of with the following direction Admittedly, certain amount is payable by the petitioner Company to the respondent Bank, which is more than Rs.
25 lakhs deposited as per the companyditional order dated 9.10.2007 is ordered to be adjusted towards the loan account due by the appellant to the respondent bank.
25 lakh was deposited.
When the matter came up before the High Court again on 13.6.2008, by reason of the impugned judgment the appellant Bank was directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.1 crore with interest at the same rate to which the respondent was liable to pay i.e. the companytractual rate of interest, in favour of the respondent within 7 days.
The said application was dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal opining that the offer made by the respondent was on the lower side.
Leave granted.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
25 lakhs.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
On its failure to pay back the amount, a proceeding was initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chennai.
The respondent herein took advance from the appellant Bank.
1471/2008.
It is number accepted at the Bar that the respondent did number agree to the aforementioned proposal of the High Court that the One Time Settlement should be companyfined to Rs.1 crore.
