SURENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK on 7 October 2026

DEBTS Rf,COYERY APPf,II,ATX TRIBUNAL, DELHI o",",,. ",, ",.f ilf i1|,i;11,6,*,1,, "*,,,**, Surender l(utl'ar Agga.wat & otneh lrcn' N", Li Stt.ndard Ctrartered Bank

07. t0.2026 flon,bte Dr.,Itrnice Sudnir I(umar Jain \t . \l t, , ( , ,r ,r,, ,\ \J.., J.( u ,rr.. I I . ( : rr. \,r\J J. t.,...,,.,.,.r.r,r i.ir I I ] r.,rJl up.... .,r,i.J,ir e.,. . .

l. ,,.1 D,e e, . ,oi.r,. .\. .ji!., r Ld , ., iiJ,\ dalcd 2j 0E 2026,rrc n*1.r,,;;;;::;,";;l: ::.']1,];::: i:: H;::: Accordnrslr file is ukcn up roda\ ind borh $e I h!!c ippeared tod.j. lounscls o' thc cotlcsrits 'artj's

2. lhe app.|anrs tile<t rhc SA bearing no. j,,20:t s.fii.h \{rs srar.d ro bc pcnding before DRT l. a.handisadr iilled as Srrrndra Kumar Aggnfur and ot[c^ \'Standard Cilrt.red tixnk. The DRT l, Chlndigadr \ide orde] d.red 10.11.2016 disnissed the SA obsenins rhar rhe acriof rak.r b! th. h.nk is ablrurcly n rccodlrcc wilh I!1v dndjusr anC propcr.

l. lh. perusal ofth. order rl.tcd :0.12:016 reltccrs rtrrL rhe mrtn disnulc berscc. lhc oxesling pan) \as ure of inreFlr lhe ratc oI jnlcresr .s ]rcr thc rfpc|e.N $as 9.4,/0 p€r annum o, as lppticlble al rhc rime ot.disbu,senrcnt as lpcciat ojt.cr nradc aptlicablc in the case ofappeltinls and as pcr rcspondenr rhe r.t. oj.jnleresl was larlablc. l he..lcydnt ponion ofthe.rdcr d.ted 20.ll t0 t6 re.,t rs underl -. II( r'l horh rL( (uun.el.rnrl ttrru,ed rtrr r(orl. lficr gohg lhrotrgb ihr arytrmenrs, rhr otrty obj.rtion ,.rised lrr lh. pplic.nr! is qna rut€ ofitrhrcsi for$hi.h ther b,tc been sho$1r ihcir inctnr.iio ro seitle tnc ,Drount, Bur rhc f.irne$ shorv. bt rhe Conns.t tor th. Appti.!nts olhcnrise nol liuitlnl rs going throueh tho r€cord ninutoly, thc docu ent trron rvhic[ il[ Appli.ui hr! .cli€d uDon. j.c.. suciion tc(rr Exh.Al. I h,y€ observcd lhe rcl€lant Cohnrn .lnt.r.si iync., $h.r. ii n ctc.rty .reniio cd ,,l"Jilllt :.,'i.,I'll.,li,,; :ll;::,, ;.1: l;:,i* -h afl ni. rbrf ,. \ uu :I;l ;,.,jt:;l :l ;::1.1,:l; ;:1,;;. ll:,:lT;,i,,,,;;[liil;:ir.,,];:1, t: r"""r"," ", ,r*,,,"., iii;,.;;,J,,1';l ,"1"J i,1."|i,,,," ,"0 ",lr r,e ,1, re.i n, i,. cDruhn r.r \r,ns. ri\c, .",, "i'r,1JL"ll ,.1,111'". ,t,e.arr. 'anrri,r r.ir,r

- rrr'rk orin,,,6, r,,rhr",;ii;"";;;": fi:,11, n.\r cortrn,tr rs rci,,. o! - rr, .trbie.r i0 rhr chrne(. itr +rilil*lffr1lp$][flffi i*..,'mrlii * ri:ilI:lr;r*[ Ul*+:r,; Iroroancc snl, t $ ju!r,,nd lroner.

8. Accordingtl, ihis SA is disunscd. An! aptti(,rion p.nding slandi dislosc.t

4. Sh. Mahesh K. Chaudhary, Counsel for the appelanrs in support of his argumenr stared that the m& of interest as per the sancrior letter dated 29.04.2006 was 9.4%o per arnurn as nade appticable as a speciat off€r ro the appelanrs and also ref€n€d th€ clauses t4 .nd li of the terms and condiiions of ihe sarction letter. It h accordinSly prsyed rhat rhe impugned order be ser aside as the appellants are liabte io make payment ofinteresi @ 9.4% per annum in terms of fte sancrion letter dated 29.04.2006.

5. Sh. R4eev Sagar, Counsel for the respondent opposed rhe above arguments as advanc€d by Sh. Mahesh K. Chaudhary, Advocate on behalfofthe appellants and argued ater r€f€ning th€ sanction letrer dated 29.04.2006 that as per lhe sanction letter the rate of interesr w.s vdiable and also r€fer the ctause t6 ofthe tems ed condilions. Sh. Rajeev Sagar during the course ofarsumenr atso referred the toan agreement dared 10.05.2006 and in parricular refer ihe schedule attached with the loan agreement. He refened that as per rhe schedule that rate of interesr w.s vdiable.s menrioned in clause 2.1 ed 2.2 ofthe Article Reference. Accordinsly, Sh. Rajeev Sagd argued thar the appelurs are liabte ro rEke pay.€nt olmte of interest on variable ud atso cited various judsments which are d u.der:

(a) Copy ofjudgement dated 03.0E.2015 pa$ed by rhe supreh€ coun orindia in ICICI B.Dk LiDited V Mrt.nj Krhru Drlh & olh€.s (b) Copy ofjudsemenl daEd 24.04.1996 passed by the Supreme Coun oflndia in TamilNrdu Electricity Boird rld,.other V Rlju Reddi$ rdlooaher

(c) Copy ofjudeement dated 19.12.2002 pased by the Suprcme Coud of India in Sybdi.rte Br V R. y.€r.rD..rd other, (d) Copy ofjudgemmi dared 20.10.2009I6sed by Ihe Sup.eme Court of India in Gr.sin hduslriB Lintted & uother V Agrptt Stet (e) Copy ofjudgement dated 10.09.2008 pass€d by the High Coud of Delhi in N.litriSiryh Asoclatcs V prine time- Ip Medi, S€nies Limiaed

6. li is reflecting f.om the perusat of the sdction tetler that rhe interest at the rate of9.4% per amurn was made appticable in case of appellets on the loan ofRs.16 lacs as a special offer. After the plain readins of the sanction letter dated 29.04.2006 although m€ntioned the mie of irterest w.s varjable but it cannot be said in the next column thal it was vaiabl€ and it is cledty app€aring that rle rate of interest which was made applic.ble to rle appellanb was 9.4% Pe. annum.

7. This Tribunal is ofth€ opinion ifrhe two i erlrerations are possible ftom rhe sm€ document tho the inaerpretation which is in tle interest and benefit ofthe borower should b€ given effect. Afte. considering all facts rhe impuened judsement dared 20.12.2016 cannot susrain and accordinsly set-aside. It is made €lear that the appeltants aie liable to pay inrerest at the rate of interest of 9.4% p€r annum. The pending applicarions atso stands disposed oC

8. Sh. Mahesh K. Chaudhary, Counsel for rhe al,pelsnts inforned ihar the appellmts have paid entire lom amount along with lhe interest at rhe rar€ of 9.4% (Dr.,,usticc sudhir Kunr.r.Iain) (ttrirprrsoh