IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.14009 of 2010
M/S LAXMAN WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR
-----------
3. 01.9.2010 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated
31.5.2010 passed by respondent No.2, the Presiding
Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, by which he has
allowed the Appeal No. 10 of 2009 filed by the respondent
Central Bank of India and set aside the order dated
13.3.2000 passed by the Recovery Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by
order dated 13.3.2000 the Recovery Officer had held that
in terms of the certificate issued allowing interest at the
rate of 12% per annum the same amounted to the allowing
of simple interest and not compound interest. It is urged by
learned counsel that the said order was not challenged by
the Bank for almost nine years until filing of Appeal No.
10 of 2009 which was hopelessly barred by limitation. The
matter has been considered by the D.R.T. and it has been
ultimately held that the pendentelite and future interest is
to be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum with annual
rest till its realization.
2
It is also pointed out by learned counsels for the
parties that there have been several rounds of litigation in
the matter and subsequent to the order of the D.R.T. the
parties had agreed to take the matter to the Lok Adalat,
which had disposed of the same by order dated
27.12.2005. The said order has been challenged by the
respondent Central Bank in C.W.J.C.No.2587 of 2007. It
is stated that the petitioner also earlier filed
C.W.J.C.No.14722 of 2008 challenging the proclamation
of sale made by the Recovery Officer of the D.R.T., Patna.
The same was ultimately dismissed and the L.P.A. against
the same was also dismissed as withdrawn after some
arguments on the prayer of learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner so that he may approach the
appropriate forum. Civil Review No. 336 of 2009 filed
subsequently was also dismissed as not pressed with the
observation that the dismissal of the review application
will not come in the way of the petitioner to raise all such
facts which may be required in adjudication of
C.W.J.C.No.2587 of 2007 filed on behalf of the Central
Bank of India.
3
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is
of the view that the present matter should also be heard
and disposed of along with C.W.J.C.No.2587 of 2007. It is
so directed.
Learned counsel for the Central Bank states that in
the said case notices have been issued and there is
direction for listing the matter after service of notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will be
filing appearance on behalf of the petitioner herein in that
case within one week from today.
Put up this matter along with C.W.J.C.No.2587 of
2007 among ‘0’ cases in the main list on 15th September,
2010.
In the meantime, the recovery proceeding in RP Case
No.79/99 against the petitioner shall remain stayed.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)
Spal/