TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Banking Finance Company ('NBFC') providing loans. The appellants applied for a loan of 12 crores against which Rs. 11.50 crores was sanctioned by the respondent on 25th May, 2010, under three different agreements for amounts of Rs. 4.5 crores, Rs. 4 crores and Rs. 3 crores. The loans were to carry interest @6.95% p.a., and were to be repaid in 24 monthly instalments, commencing from 26th May, 2010. As per paragraph 4 of the loan agreements, the appellants issued several post-dated cheques for repayment of the loans, on an undertaking that the said cheques would be honoured on presentation. In the event that the cheques issued were dishonoured, the appellants were liable for action under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The directors of the appellant company stood as guarantors and were jointly and severally liable. It is alleged by the respondent, that Mrs. Deepti Gupta, had separately executed several Personal Guarantee Agreements dated 28th May, 2010, to guarantee repayment of the loans. It is also the case of the respondent that Mrs. Deepti Gupta mortgaged one immovable property bearing no. B-213, Chitaranjan Park, New Delhi, in favour of the respondent. 3. After deducti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a claim of Rs. 12,16,44,871/- due from the appellants as on 26th June, 2013. On 5th July, 2016 the Arbitrator passed the following award to the tune of Rs. 25,99,26,542/-. He had observed and concluded:- "12. In view of the facts and discussions, this Arbitral Tribunal holds, that the Claimant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 12,16,44,871/- towards the outstanding dues as on 26.06.2013 from the Respondents jointly and severally. Further, the Claimant shall be entitled to recover pendente lite interest amounting to Rs. 13,82,81,671/- from 27.06.2013 to the date of signing of the Award i.e. 05.07.2016. In lieu of late fee at the contractual rate on the overdue Installments of Rs. 6,25,70,892/-, thus making a total of Rs. 25,99,26,542/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crores Ninety Nine Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Forty Two Only), recoverable from the Respondents jointly and severally. In addition to the above, the Claimant shall also be entitled to recover future interest on the above amount at the rate of 18% p.a. compounded on monthly rest from the date of signing of award to the date of payment from the Respondents jointly and severally. During the arbitration proceedings, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....calculation sheet was filed by the respondent indicating that Rs. 4,02,13,129/- was payable till 31st March, 2017, which was taken on record and the petition was disposed of. The appellants did not file any computation or calculation sheet. 9. After the disposal of the petition, the appellant moved an application being IA no.5078/2017 on the ground that the computation filed by the respondent, which was taken on record on 24th March 2017, was erroneous, as on the said date the appellants was not fully prepared on the question of computation and had also sought an adjournment, due to unavailability of the main counsel. This application was decided on 26th April, 2017 by the Single Judge who categorically records as under: "9. Even though there were letters on record evidencing that the petitioner no.l had paid money towards fixed deposit carrying interest at the rate of 6.95% for a period of 24 months; the respondent agreed to treat the said deposit as repayment of the loan, thus in effect substantially reducing the interest burden on the petitioners. The respondent had also agreed to forgo charges at the rate of Rs. 2 per rupees thousand per day and also to reduce the rate of inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ahani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon Jagdish Manohar Singh v. South Delhi Builders Pvt. Ltd. ILR (2008) Supp. (9) Delhi 89 (hereinafter 'Jagdish Manohar Singh') and Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel AIR 1988 SC 400 (hereinafter 'Gurpreet Singh') Respondent's submissions 11. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the matter was taken up on various occasions by the Single Judge. Thereafter a consent was passed. The concessions given by both sides were were well understood by the parties, as is recorded by the Single Judge in his order dated 26th April, 2017. Mr. Nagesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, relies upon Jineshwardas v. Jagrani & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 4596 (hereinafter 'Jineshwardas'), to argue that the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, are being misunderstood and misinterpreted by the appellants. Analysis and Findings 12. A perusal of the three orders dated 17th March 2017, 24th March, 2017 and 26th April, 2017 reveals the following: i. The amounts paid to the appellant No. 1 were not in dispute. Payments of loan and deposit in the form of FDRs was as per agreements. ii. The only issue r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 24th March, 2017. It is not the case of the appellants that as per order dated 17th March 2017, 18% simple interest was payable. This was not so recorded. The order is categorical and brooks no confusion. Pre-award interest as agreed was 18%, with monthly rests. The stand of the appellant in IA No.5078/2017 is that the terms recorded in the order dated 17th March, 2017 "are not in line with the instructions given by the petitioner to its erstwhile counsel, is obviously wrong and unacceptable" 14. The appellants give various reasons to allege that several important terms were not recorded. All these contentions have been considered by the Single Judge in the order dated 26th April, 2017. The Single Judge has held that the issues raised by the appellants in the application for clarification/modification were not in line with the proceedings in the Court in the last three hearings. The Single Judge records that the terms had been thrashed out over a period of three hearings and was finally recorded in the order passed on 17th March, 2017. It is the finding of the Single Judge that the recordal on 17th March, 2017 was after much discussion and at the instance of the petitioners i.e.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., to contend to the contrary. That apart we are also of the view that a judgment or decree passed as result of consensus arrived at before Court, cannot always be said to be one passed on compromise or settlement and adjustment. It may, at times, be also a judgment on admission, as in this case." 19. A similar view was taken in Rajinder Singh v. Pushpa Devi, AIR 2004 Del 228 (hereinafter, 'Rajinder Singh'). A learned Single Judge of this Court has elucidated and held that Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC is in two parts. The first part requires an agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties. Such an agreement could either be an out of Court settlement or during the hearing in a suit or an appeal. The second part which relates to satisfaction of whole or part of the subject matter of the suit, the Court observed that this need not be by an agreement in writing, signed by the parties. Such a satisfaction could take place during the proceedings before the Court as well. 20. In Rajinder Singh (supra), it was also held that "a counsel could compromise a dispute on behalf of his client". Such a compromise could be the result of a consensus arrived at before the Court and ....