O.A. No. 37 of 2002. Case: Central Bank of India Vs Smt. Parwati Wadhwani and Ors.. Ranchi Debt Recovery Tribunals
| Case Number | O.A. No. 37 of 2002 |
| Judges | S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer |
| Issue | Banking |
| Citation | I (2004) BC 116 |
| Judgement Date | May 27, 2003 |
| Court | Ranchi Debt Recovery Tribunals |
Order:
S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer
-
Heard the arguments of both the parties.
-
It is the contention of the Bank that there has been breach of compromise agreement by the defendants by way of default in payment and, therefore, the certificate for the original debt as per the default clause should be issued. Learned Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 repeatedly requested for extension of time upto 30.6.2003 to enable them to pay the balance outstanding compromise amount along with interest as per Para 3 of the compromise agreement.
-
At the outset it has to be examined as to whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant extension of time. In this connection it is seen that Learned DRT, Patna has passed compromise order dated 30.1.2002 as per the compromise agreement entered between the parties. In the case of Smt. Periyakkal v. Smt. Dakshayani reported in AIR 1983 SC 428, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "where the parties entered into a compromise and invited the Court to make an order in terms of the compromise the time for deposit stipulated by the parties become the time allowed by the Court and this gives the Court the jurisdiction to extend time in appropriate cases". In the instant case the compromise memo has been accepted by DRT vide its order dated 30.1.2002. Since compromise decree has been passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, therefore, this Tribunal is not powerless to extend time in appropriate cases.
-
As regards the merit of the case it is an admitted fact that the defendants have paid Rs. 1 lacinthree instalments after the date of breach i.e. 30.6.2002. The Bank has contended in their counter that the said amount has been accepted by them without prejudice to their petition dated 24.10.2002. Defendants have filed affidavit with contradictory contention that Bank has accepted the aforesaid compromise instalments after the date of breach without any reservation. The Bank could not place any documents to show that the said instalments have been received by them after the date of breach without prejudice to their rights and contentions. Admittedly, no notice was communicated to the defendants revealing such intention. It was held in AIR 1917 Patna 82, that "acceptance of payments after the expiry of the time fixed operates as a waiver of limitation as to time in the contract".
-
Defendants have referred to the Division Bench decision reported in AIR 1983 Madras 169, wherein it has been held that "where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial