Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S.Veneers & Laminations(India) Ltd.

Kerala HC27 Nov 2012WP(C)/5472/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Bank's writ petition setting aside the DRAT order that reduced interest liability. It held the DRAT lacked jurisdiction to alter interest terms not challenged earlier. Furthermore, the debtor was denied a new 2010 settlement scheme because a decree had already been passed against them, violating scheme stipulations. The Court granted the debtor limited relief under the earlie

What did the court decide?

The DRAT order setting aside the DRT decree was set aside; the debtor was granted the benefit of the earlier OTS scheme for the remaining balance and directed to pay the computed amount within one wee

State Bank of India Vs M/S.Veneers… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/6TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5472 of 2006 (B)

¶6

OA.28/1996 of DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

STATE BANK OF INDIA, COMMERCIAL BRANCH ERNAKULAM, EXPRESS HOUSE, KALOOR KOCHI-682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. M/S.VENEERS & LAMINATIONS(INDIA) LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, THOMMAN JACOB KIZHAVANA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015.

¶12

2. MR.THOMMAN JACOB, S/O.LATE T.K.JACOB, THAMARAPALLY HOUSE, SOUTH KALAMASSERY KOCHI-682 022.

¶13

3. MR.DILIP JACOB, DIRECTOR, VENEERS & LAMINATIONS (INDIA) LTD., KIZHAVANA ROAD ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015.

¶14

4. MRS.SALLI JACOB, W/O. LATE T.K.JACOB, THAMARAPALLY HOUSE , SOUTH KALAMASSERY KOCHI 682 022.

¶15

5. MRS.LALLY KURUVILA, D/O.LATE T.K.JACOB, THAMARAPALLY HOUSE , SOUTH KALAMASSERY KOCHI 682 022.

¶16

6. MRS.LAILY CHERIAN, D/O.LATE T.K.JACOB, THAMARAPALLY HOUSE , SOUTH KALAMASSERY KOCHI 682 022.

¶17

R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) R1,R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-09-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 35160/2010, THE COURT ON 27-11-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

tss

¶20

W.P.(C) NO.5472/2006

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM , IN OA.28/1996 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BANK AGAINST RESPONDENT COMPANY DTD. 7.12.2001.

¶24

P2:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN R.A. 40/2005 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AND ANOTHER BEFORE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI. DTD. 4.3.2002.

¶25

P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A. 639/2004 FILED B THE IST RESPONDENT AND ANOTHER.DTD. 6.6.2005.

¶26

P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA TO THE LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA REGARDING COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT OF CHRONIC NPAS.DTD. 17.3.2005.

¶27

P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER BANK TO RESPONDENT NO.1 DTD. 16.6.2005.

¶28

P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WA. 1488/2001 IN OP.36028/2000 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.DTD. 29.8.2005.

¶29

P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI, IN R.A. 40/2005FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AND ANOTHER.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶31

R3(a):- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DTD 27.7.2000.

¶32

R3(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21.10.2000 ADDRESSED BY THE COMPANY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶33

R3(c):- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMPANY DTD 24.10.2000.

¶34

R3(d):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANY TO PETITIONER DTD. 14.11.2000.

¶35

R3(e):- COPY OF THE REPLY OF PETITIONER TO EXT.R3(d):- VIDE LETTER DTD. 26.3.2001.

¶36

R3(f):- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DTD. 20.2.1999.

¶37

tss

¶38

W.P.(C) NO.5472/2006

¶39

R3(g):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANY TO PETITIONER DTD 9.4.2001.

¶40

R3(h):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM BANK DTD. 17.7.2003.

¶41

R3(i):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED BY THE COMPANY TO ASST. GENERAL MANAGER OF PETITIONER DT.D 4.10.2005.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶46

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶47

......................................................................... Dated this the 27^th November, 2012

¶48

J U D G M E N T

¶49

The verdict passed by the DRT, Ernkulam in O.A.28/1996, to the extent it has been watered down by the DRAT, Chennai as per the order in appeal, (R.A.No.40 of 2005) is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.5472 of 2006 preferred by the creditor Bank, while the debtor/defaulter seeks for the benefit of a New Scheme of OTS notified by the Bank during the pendency of the above writ petition in the year 2010 to settle the dispute, by way of W.P. (C)35160 of 2010.

¶50

The factual matrix reveals that the debtor Company was sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.50 lakhs by the creditor Bank on 23.02.1983. But the repayment was not prompt and in view of chronic defaults, the account was classified as 'doubtful assets' on 01.01.1991. Struggling for existence, the debtor

¶51

¶52

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶53

company filed an application before the Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction (BIFR in short) for revival steps in May, 1991 and after an exhaustive analysis of the facts and figures, on finding that it was difficult to rehabilitate the debtor Company, the BIFR recommended for winding up in September, 1996. Though the order of the BIFR was challenged by the debtor Company before the appellate authority, it did not turn to be fruitful.

¶54

While so, the existing liability had mounted up to Rs.3.37 crores, when the creditor Bank filed O.A. before the DRT, Chennai, which was subsequently transferred to the DRT, Ernakulam, where it was numbered as O.A.No.28 of 1996. The claim was for satisfaction of nearly Rs.3.37/- crores together with interest, as prescribed (ie. @ Rs.19.5%). While so, the Bank approved the ' compromise proposal' submitted by the Company for a total sum of Rs. 1.30 crore s as per the proceedings dated 24.12.1998 and intimation was served to the defaulter

¶55

Company, asking to satisfy the due amount on or before 31.03.1999 ( waiving a substantial extent of nearly Rs.3.75

¶56

¶57

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶58

crores).

¶59

The defaulter Company did not satisfy the amount on time and sought for extension of time, referring to various adverse circumstances, including the fact that a Company by name 'Kitply Industries Ltd', Calcutta, who had come forward to take over the debtor Company, had subsequently backed out. Considering the grievance of the defaulter Company, the Bank extended the time upto 31.07.1999 and communicated the position. Admittedly, the defaulter Company could not raise the amount and the OTS got lapsed.

¶60

In the meanwhile, as there was no proper prosecution from the part of the defendants in the O.A., it was decided 'exparte'. On challenging the same by filing O.P.7493 of 2000 , the 'ex parte' verdict was set aside and the DRT was directed to consider the matter afresh. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the O.A. was decreed for a total sum of Rs. 3,37,09,121.11/- with interest as specified. The defaulter Company filed appeal (R.A.No.40 of 2005) before the DRAT, Chennai, wherein an interim order was passed on 21.06.2002,

¶61

¶62

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶63

directing the Company to satisfy a sum of Rs.45 lakhs within eight weeks, which was the subject matter of challenge in O.P. 23591 of 2002 filed before this Court . After considering the merits, interference was declined and the OP. was dismissed, against which the defaulter Company preferred W.A.No. 639 of 2004. Observing the there was no merit in the Writ Appeal, it was dismissed by the Division Bench, as per the judgment dated 06.06.2005, granting four weeks' time to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 30 lakhs, after giving credit to a sum of Rs.15 lakhs remitted already, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and leaving the matter to be considered and decided by the DRAT, Chennai. It is stated that the defaulter Company satisfied the said amount on 01.07.2005; thus remitting a sum of Rs.45 lakhs, pursuant to the interim order passed by the DRAT, Chennai, over and above the sum of R s.80 lakhs paid to the Bank at different points of time till that date (after acceptance of the OTS proposal to settle the liability for the total sum of Rs.130 lakhs).

¶64

Various contentions were raised from the part of the

¶65

¶66

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶67

defaulter Company, mainly pointing out that the default was more on the part of the Bank, who had not initially accepted the proposal to have settled the liability for Rs.130 lakhs and that the approval came only much later. It was also pointed out that the defaulter Company was eligible to have the matter settled under the 'Revised OTS Scheme', notified by the RBI, which benefit was however denied by the creditor Bank, stating that the Scheme was applicable only in pending cases, whereas the instance case had become final by virtue of the decree/order passed by the DRT. It was further pointed out that the defaulter Company was not entitled to have the benefit of the said Scheme by virtue of the specific stipulation under the Scheme, denying the benefit to 'wilful defaulters'. The contention of the defaulter Company is that it was never a 'wilful defaulter', going by the terms of the relevant clause under the Scheme specifying the definition of the term ' wilful defaulter ' and further that the creditor Bank had not constituted a Committee to identify the 'wilful defaulters'. It is also stated that the defaulter Company's name does not appear anywhere in the list published by the

¶68

¶69

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶70

creditor Bank in the relevant Website, showing the particulars of 'wilful defaulters' and as such, denial of benefit of the RBI Scheme is liable to be interfered.

¶71

During the pendency of the appeal before the DRAT, Chennai, the creditor Bank issued a letter dated 17.07.2003 to the defaulter Company, referring to the letter dated 11.04.2003 sent by the defaulter. As per the said communication, the Bank informed that the offer of Rs. 50 lakhs towards payment of the balance amount under the compromise settlement agreed earlier had been approved by the appropriate authority, on condition that interest at PLR (Prime Lending Rate) would be paid from 01.04.1999 till the date of final payment of the compromise amount; thus requesting the defaulter Company to make necessary arrangements to satisfy the due amount at an early date.

¶72

On receipt of the said communication, the defaulter Company agreed to satisfy the principal amount of Rs.50 lakhs towards the balance compromise settlement amount agreed earlier , but contended that they were liable to pay interest only

¶73

¶74

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶75

from 17.07.2003 and not from 01.04.1999 . Taking note of

¶76

the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the only question that fell for consideration was whether the appellant Company was liable to pay interest at the PLR rate from 17.07.2003 only or from 01.04.1999, as claimed by the Bank and that it had become quite unnecessary to answer all other points raised in the appeal.

¶77

After observing that the Bank was not justified in categorising the defaulter company as a ' wilful defaulter' , the Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant had paid various amounts on different dates and that the Bank had quantified the principal amount only as Rs.50 lakhs by their letter dated 17.07.2003 and that since the said figure was acceptable to the Bank, it would be proper to direct the appellant Company to pay the said amount with interest at the PLR from 17.07.2003 only, holding that the delay was more on the part of the Bank in giving credit to a sum of Rs.15 lakhs paid on 31.03.2004 and a sum of Rs.30 lakhs on 01.07.2005 (totalling Rs.45 lakhs). It was accordingly, that the Bank was directed to file a revised

¶78

¶79

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶80

statement before the DRT, Ernakulam, directing the DRT to issue a revised DRC (Debt Recovery Certificate) for the said amount, virtually allowing the appeal in part, without prejudice to the rights and contentions with regard to the correctness of the statement of accounts, if disputed by the defaulter Company.

¶81

Adv. Mr. P.V. Surendranath, the learned Counsel for the creditor Bank submits that the verdict passed by the DRAT, Chennai is per se wrong and illegal, in having restricted the right to collect interest at the PLR on the outstanding principal amount of Rs.50 lakhs (to top up the OTS figure of Rs.130 lakhs, as originally agreed) only to be from 17.07.2003. It is pointed out that the factum of settlement of the dispute under the then OTS scheme by paying a total sum of Rs.130 lakhs as agreed, approved and accepted, as let known vide Ext.P3 dated 18.01.1999 stands conceded. Admittedly, the defaulter Company had satisfied only a total sum of Rs.80 lakhs, by way of different lots, at different points of time, towards the total liability of Rs.130 lakhs and the balance sum of Rs.50 lakhs, as agreed earlier was also to be paid within the specified date, i.e before

¶82

¶83

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶84

31.03.1999. Despite the extension of time granted till 31.07.1999, the due amount was not cleared and the OTS got lapsed. It was notwithstanding the proceedings, as above, even after getting a favourable verdict from DRT, Ernakulam in O.A. 28 of 1996, that the Bank thought it fit and proper to give one more chance to the defaulter Company to clear the balance amount of OTS of Rs.50 lakhs and avail the benefit thereunder; on condition that interest at the PLR was satisfied in respect of the delay from 01.04.1999 to 17.07.2003. If the defaulter Company wanted to have the benefit of the OTS, as above, it had to be taken as it was and the DRAT, Chennai was having absolutely no power or competence to have scaled down the interest, restricting the same to be applicable only w.e.f. 17.07.2003 in place of 01.04.1999. The date w.e.f. which interest on the balance OTS amount was liable to be paid, was not a subject matter of consideration before the DRT, Ernakulam or even before the Appellate Tribunal and as such, the verdict passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be intercepted by this Court, submits the learned Counsel.

¶85

¶86

W.P. © No.5472 OF 2006 & 35160 OF 2010

¶87

The learned Counsel for the Bank also submits that in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in X -Calibre Knives (P) Ltd and another vs State Bank of India [ 2005 (10) SCC 265] and also the verdicts passed by a Division Benche of the High Court of New Delhi in W.P.(C) 10005 of 2005 and by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sathe Biscuits & Chocolates Ltd. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra ( AIR 2004 Bombay 101) , the defaulter Company, who was already extended the benefit as per the then existing Scheme but failed to satisfy the same, is having no vested right to project another claim to be considered under a different Scheme brought about later and it is liable to be treated as a 'wilful defaulter ' in this regard. The scope of the Scheme has also been considered in the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi, wherein it has been held that a defaulter having once entered into a settlement with the Bank, but did not satisfy the due amount under the OTS, is not entitled to the benefit of subsequent RBI Scheme, which is squarely applicable to the case in hand. It is also asserted that, in view of the specific terms of the Scheme,

¶88

¶89

¶90

when there is already a decree, such cases are clearly outside the purview of the Scheme.

¶91

Shri P. Ravindran, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the defaulter Company submits that the Bank was not having a consistent stand or a case. Initially, they contended that the defaulter Company had already sustained a decree and hence it was outside the purview of the Scheme. Then, they came up with the contention that the defaulter Company was a ' wilful defaulter', which in fact was not correct, in view of the clear stipulations issued by the RBI under the relevant Scheme defining the term 'wilful defaulter '. The learned Counsel further submits that the verdict passed by the DRT had already been set aside by this Court, while ordering remand as per the judgment in O.P.No.7493 of 2000 and hence the subsequent RBI Scheme could have been made applicable to the case in hand. It is also pointed out that the final verdict passed by the DRT, Ernakulam, after fresh disposal, came to be intercepted by the DRAT, Chennai, vide order dated 13.01.2006 in RA.40 of 2005 and that the matter has been remanded to the DRT. This being

¶92

¶93

¶94

the position, the claim of the defaulter Company to have the benefit of the recently notified OTS scheme of the Bank in the year 2010, forms the basic prayer in W.P.(C) 35160 of 2010.

¶95

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the total liability under the transaction got mounted up, almost to nearly Rs.5 crores and that the Bank had accepted the proposal of the defaulter Company to have extended the benefit of OTS, on payment of a total sum of Rs.130 lakhs on or before 31.03.1999. It also remains a fact that, though the time for payment was extended upto 31.07.1999, the due amount was not paid by the defaulter and the OTS got lapsed, finally leading to the order/decree passed by the DRT, Ernakulam for realisation of Rs. 3,37,09,121.11/- with interest as specified, less the amount satisfied in the meanwhile. Even after passing the decree, the Bank volunteered to give one more opportunity to the defaulter Company to pay the deficit amount of OTS as originally agreed, i.e. to an extent of Rs.50

¶96

lakhs subject to satisfaction of interest at PLR from 01.04.1999, as the OTS proposal was approved and accepted, on

¶97

¶98

¶99

condition that the due amount was paid on or before 31.03.1999. It was open for the defaulter Company, either to have accepted the said figure as given in letter dated 17.07.2003 or to have contested the appeal before the DRAT. Instead of doing that, the defaulter Company disputed the liability to pay interest from 01.04.1999 on the principal amount of Rs.50 lakhs, while agreeing to satisfy the amount with interest from 17.07.2003, which led to the observation of the DRAT in paragraph '8' of the appellate verdict, in the following terms:

¶100

“Now the only question that falls for consideration of this Tribunal is whether the Appellants are liable to pay interest at PLR rate from 17.7.2003 only or from 1.4.1999 as claimed by the Respondent Bank. Hence it has become unnecessary to answer all other points raised in the Appeal”

¶101

From the above, it is clear that the Appellate Tribunal

¶102

did not consider any other point raised in the appeal and no such

¶103

point was ever pressed from the part of the appellant, i.e. defaulter Company. Justifiability of the demand for interest on

¶104

¶105

¶106

the balance principal sum of Rs.50 lakhs from 01.04.1999, as demanded by the Bank vide letter dated 17.07.2003, was never the subject matter of consideration before the DRT, nor was it an issue mooted before the Appellate Tribunal. As such, it was never open for the Appellate Tribunal to have curtailed the rights and interests of the Bank in this regard, who has already waived substantial amount to an extent of nearly Rs. 3.7 crores, ordering to waive further amount by way of interest from 01.04.1999, by compelling the Bank to extend the benefit of OTS contrary to the agreed terms. As it stands so, it is liable to be intercepted by this Court as not correct or sustainable either on facts or in law .

¶107

With regard to the claim of the defaulter Company to have the benefit of the revised Scheme notified by the RBI, no decision has been rendered by the DRAT in this regard, as borne by the order dated 13.01.2006. It is obviously for the reason that, the defaulter Company, pursuant to issuance of communication by the Bank on 17.07.2003, (extending the benefit of earlier OTS confining the figure to the very same

¶108

¶109

¶110

amount of Rs.130 lakhs, but for demanding interest at PLR on the deficit amount from 01.04.1999 till the date of payment), had voluntarily and consciously confined the contention only against the demand of interest from 01.04.1999, instead of from 17.07.2003,( the date of letter) and nothing more. The verdict passed by the Appellate Tribunal, without considering the said aspect or as to the correctness of the decree amount, is not under challenge, at the instance of the defaulter Company. Even in W.P.(C)No.35160 of 2010 filed by the defaulter Company, nearly four years after the other writ petition filed by the Bank, the only prayer is for extending the benefit of the newly introduced OTS Scheme, 2010 of the creditor Bank and there is no challenge against the order passed by the DRAT, (a copy of which has been produced therein as Ext.P12).

¶111

There is a contention for the defaulter Company in W.P. (C) 35160 of 2010 that, there is no bar in claiming the benefit of the newly introduced OTS Scheme of 2010, as the case of the petitioner is not one wherein, a decree has been passed, but is to be treated as a pending matter, as Ext.P10 verdict passed by

¶112

¶113

¶114

the DRT, Ernakulam has been set aside by the DRAT, Chennai, vide Ext. P12, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The said submission does not appear to be attractive to this Court for the reason that, even if Ext.P12 verdict of the DRAT is legally sustainable, the verdict passed by the DRT has got merged into Ext.P12, which takes the form of a decree to the extent as specified therein, passed on 13.01.2006, whereas the 'New Scheme' was introduced only in the year 2010. Further, going by the operative portion of Ext.P12, it is not an open remand for fresh consideration of the facts and figures and the DRT has been directed to issue a revised DRC, on the basis of the statement to be filed by the Bank before the DRT, computing the figures in the manner as specified therein. The liberty reserved in favour of the defaulter Company is only with regard to the right to dispute the correctness of the Statement of Account and nothing more. This is evident from the operative portion as contained in paragraph 12 , which is extracted below:

¶115

“12. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part and the Appellants are directed to pay

¶116

¶117

¶118

the amount, as per the Revised Statement of Account within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Revised Statement of Account. Even if the Appellants dispute the correctness of the Statement of Account, they shall deposit the amount with the Respondent Bank, without prejudice to their rights and contentions with regard to the correctness of the Statement of Account and then they are at liberty to agitate the same, in a manner known to law” .

¶119

From the above, it is clear that the role assigned to the DRT as per the appellate verdict is only that of an 'execution court', to examine the correctness of computation and never an open remand.

¶120

Going by the terms of the 'newly introduced Scheme', a copy of which has been produced as Ex.P15 in W.P.(C) 35160 of 2010, it has been stipulated under Clause 1.6 that the decreed cases will not be eligible for the benefit of the SBI OTS , 2010. The petitioner has already suffered a decree, as per Ext.P10 passed by the DRT in O.A.28 of 1996 on 07.12.2001, or at least by virtue of Ext.P12 passed by the DRAT in RA. 40/2005

¶121

¶122

¶123

on 13.01.2006. As it stands so, this Court finds that the defaulter Company is not entitled to have the benefit sought for in W.P. (C) 35160 of 2010; more so in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in 2005 (10) SCC 265 (cited supra).

¶124

However, taking note of the fact that even after passing Ext.P1 decree passed by the DRT, Ernakulam in O.A. 28 of 1996, the Bank had volunteered to extend the benefit of earlier OTS sanctioned for a total sum of Rs.130 lakhs and agreed to settle the accounts on payment of the deficit sum of Rs.50 lakhs with interest at PLR from 01.04.1999 till the date of payment, this Court finds that the defaulter Company shall be extended the said benefit. The liability stands declared only to the said extent.

¶125

In view of the fact that the defaulter company has already satisfied a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on 31.03.2004 (pursuant to the interim order passed in W.A.No.639 OF 2004) and a sum of Rs.30 lakhs on 01.07.2005 (pursuant to the final verdict in W.A.) , the balance principal amount ( if it be correct) can only be ' Rs.5 lakh' with interest at diminishing rate. The balance

¶126

¶127

¶128

figure, as above, shall be worked out by the Bank and let known to the defaulter Company within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, upon which, the due amount shall be cleared by the defaulter Company within 'one week' thereafter, failing which the benefit of OTS will stand withdrawn and the creditor Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps to get Ext.P1 verdict passed by the DRT, Ernakulam in O.A.28 of 1996 executed, as ordered by the Tribunal.

¶129

W.P.(C) 35160 of 2010 filed by the defaulter Company stands dismissed. W.P.(C) 5472 of 2006 filed by the creditor Bank stands allowed and Ext.P7 verdict passed by the DRAT, Chennai in R.A.No.40/2005 is set aside to the above extent. No cost.

¶130

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶131

State Bank of India v. M/S.Veneers & Laminations(India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S.Veneers & Laminations(India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankamani Vs Smt. K.M. Karthyayani

K.S.Srelekha Vs State of Kerala

Manager Vs State of Kerala

B.Gopal Vs the Director General Cisf Head Quarters

The Parents Teachers Association Vs State of Kerala

M.M.Najeema Vs the Managing Director