Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
THE HINDU CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs MR. SURINDER KUMAR MAHAJAN on 5 October 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
**Appeal No.462/2016
Arising out of SA No.273/2016 (DRT-II, Chandigarh)**
**Item No.57**
**The Hindu Co-operative Bank**
**V.**
**Surinder Kumar Mahajan**
**05.10.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain**
**Present:** Sh. Jitendra Kumar and Sh. Ayush Kumar, Advocates for appellant Sh. Sanjeev Sagar, Senior Advocate along with Sh. Shubhendu Bhattacharya, Ms. Swati Yadav and Sh. Nitin Mahajan, Advocates for respondent This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The respondent Surinder Kumar Mahajan filed S.A. bearing no.273/2016 titled as **Surinder Kumar V. The Hindu Co-operative Bank** which was stated to be pending before DRT-II, Chandigarh. DRT-II, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 04.08.2016 has disposed of the S.A. bearing no.273/2016.
2. The perusal of impugned order dated 04.08.2016 reflects that the respondent who was the applicant in S.A. through the son has volunteer to deposit outstanding dues as per the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which comes to Rs.1,54,78,233.00 as on 30.04.2013 along with interest. Thereafter DRT-II, Chandigarh vide order dated 04.08.2016 on the basis of statement made by the son of the applicant i.e. the respondent in the present appeal has directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,54,78,233.00 as per the notice under Section 13(2) along with simple interest @11% p.a. on reducing the balance from 01.05.2013 on or before 28.12.2016.
3. Sh. Sanjeev Sagar, Senior Advocate for the respondent stated that the respondent in compliance of the order dated 04.08.2016 has deposited the entire amount along with interest.
4. Sh. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate for the appellant stated and argued that the present appeal to impugn the order dated 04.08.2016 was filed primarily on the two count that the S.A. was barred by limitation i.e. S.A. was filed after 735 days and thereafter as per the contract the rate of interest which was to be awarded as per the contract between the parties.
5. Sh. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate during the course of argument has referred the decision passed by the Supreme Court of India in case of **State Bank of India V M/s Sharda Ginning Pressing and Oil Mills**, Civil Appeal No.7244/2016, decided on 01.08.2016 and Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to substantiate the argument that DRT-II, Chandigarh cannot award the interest below the contractual rate of interest. Sh. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate also referred Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978.
6. It is reflecting that the appellant has accepted the outstanding dues in terms of impugned order dated 04.08.2016 from the respondent without any protest or reserving right to claim interest as per the agreement between the parties although the present appeal was subsequently filed. As the appellant has accepted the outstanding dues in terms of order dated 04.08.2016 in that eventuality the issue of limitation has lost significance and further the counsel for the appellant during the course of argument did not refer any specific legal provision which can reflect or demonstrate that DRT-II, Chandigarh cannot award the interest below the contractual rate of interest between the parties. The argument as advanced by the counsel for the appellant and the referred case law appellant do not provide much help as the judgment cited by the appellant, the O.A. was pending between the parties but in the present case O.A. was not preferred by the appellant.
7. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.08.2016 which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. The present appeal is devoid of any merit. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**
-v\$