S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson
1. This Appeal is against Order dated 10.11.2020 of DRT-III, Chennai, in OA 117/2016.
2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-
Appellant herein filed OA for recovery of Rs.5,94,35,009/- from Respondents 1 to 3 herein, contending that Defendants have availed credit facilities and executed Promissory Note on 30.10.2013 and also executed Hypothecation of Goods to secure the loan amount and Defendants 2 and 3 executed Guarantee Agreement on the same day. As Defendants failed to discharge the loan amount, OA is filed for issue of Recovery Certificate.
Defendants filed their Written Statement.
Tribunal below on a consideration of OA averments and averments of Written Statement of Defendants 1 to 3, allowed OA and granted Recovery Certificate for Rs.5,94,35,009/- with subsequent interest at 10% p.a. (simple) from the date of OA till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the grant of simple interest from the date of OA till the date of realisation, present Appeal is preferred.
3. Heard the arguments.
4. Advocate for Appellant Institution submitted that the loan is for commercial purpose and Respondents have got sufficient properties, and except filing Written Statement, Respondents have not produced any evidence challenging the claim of Appellant for contractual rate of interest for the subsequent period, but, Tribunal below granted only simple interest, and the same has to be modified.
5. I have perused the material papers and the impugned Order dated 10.11.2020.
6. Admittedly, Tribunal below granted contractual rate of interest till the filing of OA, and only for subsequent period, it granted simple interest. It is not in dispute that granting of interest for subsequent period is purely discretion of Tribunal and it is settled law that such discretionary power cannot be interfered with unless it is shown that such discretion is exercised arbitrarily and without application of mind. I do not find any wrong exercise of discretion by Tribunal below in granting simple interest for subsequent period from the date of filing of OA till the date of realisation. As grant of subsequent interest is purely a discretion, I am not inclined to interfere with such discretion.
7. For the above reasons, it is held that the Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, Appeal in RA 11/2023 is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
