9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Do not find this to be a fit case where jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is to be exercised. As the respondent had paid Rs. 45,000 as interest for the defaulted period. Interestingly, pursuant to the direction of the High Court the appellant-bank had charged interest of Rs. 29,353. There into arrangements with third party for selling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short 'DRT'). The amount claimed was Rs. 14,92,295.99. The decree was passed and revision petition was filed by the appellant-bank. A compromise deed was filed at the Lok Adalat setting out the different terms of settlement. The relevant term was that the respondent was to deposit 20 per cent of the compromise/settlement amount within 30 days i.e., on or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire amount had been paid by 12-7-2004 along with interest of Rs. 45,000 for the defaulted period. The High Court held that the difficulties were genuine. The respondent had proved his bona fide by making the payment of whole amount as agreed to in the compromise and that also paid for the defaulted amount. 5. The High Court was of the view that the first instalment was paid in time. Therefore, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had directed charging of interest which in fact has been charged by the appellant bank and has been paid. Normally, when there is failure of the terms of the settlement the default clause, if provided, operates. Therefore, in the peculiar features appellant-bank agreed to settle the claim taking into account various factors. It is true that the High Court has erroneously recorded that Rs. 2,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty but the payment in respect of the sale was to be made directly to the bank. 9. It is noted that Bank at no point of time before the final payment was made appear to have indicated that settlement failed because of failure to stick to the time schedule. 10. Above being the position, we do not find this to be a fit case where jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
