SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- U.C. Banerjee and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

I.A. 56 with I.A. Nos. 60, 62 & 68 in S.L.P. (C) No. 21000/1993 with I.A. Nos. 92, 93 and 94 with I.A. No. 95. D/d. 21.03.2002.

Delhi Development Authority - Petitioner

Versus

Skipper-Construction and Anr. - Respondent

A. Public Interest Litigation - Israel Embassy - Counsel for Israel Embassy submitted that it would be able to make the payment of outstanding occupation charges being Rs. 43,95,298/- - Registrar (Judicial) directed to accept the same.

[Para 5]

B. Public Interest Litigation - Israel Embassy - Claims by banks - Punjab National Bank agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 11 Crores on account of full and final settlement as regards the claim and costs together with interest upto this date whereas a sum of Rs. 3 Crores 30 lacs stand accepted by Canara Bank - Clarification made that the interest claims of two banks stand outside the purview of applicability of award of interest since their claim stand adjudicated.

[Paras 11 and 17]

JUDGMENT

I.A. No. 92

Not today.

I.A. No. 93

2. Let this application be taken up at 2.00 P.M. on the prayer of the learned advocate appearing in support of the application.

I.A. No. 94

3. We are not inclined to pass any order i at this stage of the proceedings. As such, the same is dismissed. This order, however, will not prejudice the rights of the applicant herein to make appropriate submissions at the time of final disposal of the matter.

I.A. No. 93. (At 2.00 P.M)

4. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and having due regard to the fact that the learned Amicus has also not raised a very serious objection in the i passing of an order, we feel it expedient to pass an order in terms of prayer (i) of the application. However, withdrawal may be effected by 5th of April, 2002. I.A. is disposed of accordingly.

Regarding Israel Embassy.

5. Mr. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, states, on instructions, that the Israel Embassy would be able to make the payment of the outstanding occupation charges, being ) Rs. 43,95,298/- by 4.00 P.M. tomorrow. Such a statement stands recorded. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to accept the same and in the event of any default, the Registrar (Judicial) would be at liberty to bring it to ) the notice of this Court after the Holi Holidays. In the event, the said amount is deposited, the Registrar shall deposit the same in fixed deposit with a nationalised Bank for not more than three months.

6. During the course of hearing for the last two days, this Court deemed it fit to pass certain orders directing payments on claims of those persons whose claims stand adjudicated before the Commissions, to wit, Justice R.C. Lahoti Commission, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy Commission and Justice P.K. Bahri Commission. Be it noted that Justice Saharya Commission, though appointed by this Court, but the subject matter placed before the Saharya Commission was on a totally different perspective and as such we need not refer to the same presently.

7. Be that as it may, whatever money was lying with the Registry in terms of the earlier orders of this Court more or less stands exhausted barring a sum of about Rs. 2 Crores. As such, no further payment can be directed.

8. In, an effort to put an end to this litigation which is going on for the last about a decade, this Bench felt it of indispensable necessity to dispose of the claims of the banks as well and it is in that perspective this Court requested the learned Senior Advocates appearing for different Banks involved in the matter to consider the matter and obtain necessary instructions so as to quantify the claim of the respective Banks. Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Punjab National Bank, upon instructions, submitted that while it is true that the principal amount advanced through encashment of Bank guarantee amounts to Rs. 4,48,01,094/-, the interest up to the date of the filing of the suit amounted to Rs. 5,21,86,525/-. As a matter of fact, having regard to the accrued interest and the principal amount the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,69,87,620/-.

9. Incidentally, be it noticed that there was a consortium between the Punjab National Bank and the Canara Bank, the former Bank being the lead Bank. The Canara Bank also has a claim of Rs.l,3 8,31,00 11/- as principal amount, and Rs. 69,91,603/-, as interest, up to the date of filing of the suit amounting to a total quantum of Rs. 2,08,22,604/-.

10. It is placed on record that by reason of there being a consortium agreement and the Punjab National Bank being the lead Bank, a single suit was instituted covering both the claims of the Punjab National Bank and the Canara Bank and the total quantum of suit claim amounted to Rs. 11,78,10,224/-.

11. Initially, the civil proceedings were initiated before the High Court. But, subsequently, by reason of the creation of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms-of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, the civil proceedings were transferred and re-numbered as OA No. 5/95. It is on record further that in order to apportion the claim of each of the banks, civil proceedings were also initiated inter se between the Punjab National Bank and the Canara Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal whereupon a decree was passed though, however, the same is the subject matter of the pending appeal, being No.205/2001 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). It is on this background, the persuasive efforts of the two learned Senior Advocates of this Court have been proved to be fruitful. Resultantly, the Punjab National Bank agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 11 Crores (Rupees Eleven Crores) on account of full and final settlement as regards the claim and costs together with interest upto this date whereas a sum of Rs. 03 Crores 30 lacs (Rupees Three Crores Thirty Lacs) stand accepted by the Canara Bank on such an account totalling thereby Rs. 14 Crores 30 lacs (Rupees Fourteen Crores Thirty Lacs). It is, thus, made clear that as regards the claims of these two Banks noticed above, the same stand crystallized at Rs. 14 Crores 30 Lacs (Rupees Fourteen Crores Thirty Lacs).

12. On the wake of the aforesaid, both the learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the Punjab National Bank and the Canara Bank submitted that instructions would be made available to their respective clients for withdrawal of the proceedings before the DRT and as also before the DRA T. They further submitted that other ancillary proceedings arising therefrom shall also be withdrawn. It is, however, clarified further that whatever orders have been passed either by this Court, by the DRT or the DRAT in regard thereto for the purposes of security or preservation of other properties, the same shall continue until further orders of this Court.

13. It is further clarified that this order is passed in order to reach to an overall completion of the matter by reason of the expiry of a very long period of time. Though the claims of the two Banks were before the appropriate adjudicating authorities, but we deem it fit for the purpose of putting an end to the litigation to have the matter sorted out in its entirety and in the manner as above. The records further depict that proceedings are also pending before the DRT at the instance of the Punjab and Sind Bank. The learned advocate appearing for the Punjab and Sind Bank, however, has not been able to obtain any instruction in the line and manner as the other two Banks have been-able to offer to their learned advocates. On the wake of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to go into the issue and leave the issue as regards the j claim for the Punjab and Sind Bank to be adjudicated in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

14. Let it be placed on record further that Mr. Garg, appearing in the matter, states, on 4 instructions from his clients, present in the Court, that he has no objection to this order being passed.

15. As regards the issue of subject matter pertaining to Justice Saharya Commission Report and the three other Reports made available to this Court, namely, that of Central Vigilance Commission, Central Bureau of Investigation and the Reserve Bank of India, we do feel it expedient to record that the Reports noticed above need a detail consideration and as such, this Court feels it expedient to reserve its order on that issue which will be pronounced later.

16. Turning to the other issue of importance which concerns the claims, namely,the issue of interest, it would be convenient to note that this Court by its judgments dated 6.5.1996 and 17.12.1999 in this very matter came to a definite conclusion as regards the entitlement of interest in regard to the persons who had lodged their claims before the appropriate authorities from time to time in terms of respective orders of this Court. As such, we do feel it expedient to record that our task has thus become much easier since we are concerned only with the period and rate. As regards the period concerned, even though this Court on earlier occasions have bifurcated the entire period into two different spheres, namely, pre- 29.1.1991 and post-29.1.1991, we do feel it expedient that for the purposes of calculation of interest the period though ought to be divided into two, but the same would be having a different terminology namely, the pre-attachment period and the post- attachment period. Attachment order was passed as early as on 29.11.1994 whereas the 35 rate would be, in our view, upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties, 9% for the pre-attachment period and 6% for the post-attachment period. This interest would be simple in nature and shall be calculated from the respective dates of deposit till the payments are actually received by the claimants.

17. Let it be clarified that as regards the interest claims of two banks namely, the Punjab National Bank and the Canara Bank, they stand outside the purview of the applicability of the concept of award of interest since their claims stand adjudicated as agreed by the respective banks at a specified figure, as noticed above.

18. We are not going into the factum of whose liability it is to pay the interest, but the same shall abide by any subsequent proceeding, if any, that may be initiated inter se between the parties. It is clarified that the payment of interest is restricted to the claims covered by the report of the Commission wherein the claim stands adjudicated and accepted.

19. This Court expresses its gratitude for the assistance rendered by both Amicus Curiae, namely, Mr. Joseph Vellapally and Mr. Dayan Krishnan. This Court at this juncture feels it, however, expedient to direct a further payment of Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. Dayan Krishnan being a Junior Amicus Curiae in the matter because of the assistance rendered by him which we greatly appreciate.

.