TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epend on the facts of each case. The ends of justice would be met if for the delay that had occurred, the Appellants are made liable to pay simple interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount of ₹ 34.5 lakhs (as agreed to in the Lok Adalat) for the period from the date of the Award of Lok Adalat, i.e., 10.09.2004 to the date of last payment, i.e., 29.10.2006. In addition, a further amount of ₹ 10 lakhs to be paid by the Appellants to the Respondent-Bank as compensation and costs - Appeal allowed. - Civil Appeal No. 3447 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2018 - Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ. For Appellant: K. Rajendran, Roshan Chapagain, Advs. and Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR For Respondents/ Himanshu Munshi, AOR and Subhash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs stood paid by the Appellants to the Respondent-Bank as on 29.10.2006. 3. Before the DRT, the Appellants had sought for extension of time for payment and condonation of delay that had occurred in adhering to the time schedule of payment as agreed to in the Lok Adalat. The DRT dismissed the application which decision was reversed in appeal in DRAT. Thereafter, the said order of the DRAT was questioned by the bank in a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition being allowed by the impugned order the Appellants are before us in this appeal. 4. By order dated 7.12.2017 which is in the terms extracted below, we had directed as follows: Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties we direct the Appellants to indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een the parties that the bank would have a right to recover the full amount due in the event of default on the part of the Appellants, the same was not the only course of action or the sole option and that on the grounds shown for the delay the same is liable to be understood in favour of the borrower. Accordingly, the matter was closed. In the writ petition filed by the Bank the position was reversed. 8. In the facts of the present case, the view taken by the learned Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), as noted above, cannot be said to be so wholly unreasonable or unsustainable so as to justify interference by the High Court. If the agreed amount stood paid though with some delay, condonation of the delay is a possible course of action, if the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
