/2023 INSC 0327/
1
Non­Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.460 OF 2023
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO.16537 OF 2021
ROCKLINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY  …APPELLANT
VERSUS
DOHA BANK QSC & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL J.
1. The   present   Miscellaneous   Application   is   filed   seeking
clarification   of   the   order   dated   12.05.2022   passed   by   this
Court in Special Leave Petition No.16537/2021 titled Rockline
Construction  Company  v. Doha  Bank QSC  & Ors., whereby  a

2
Judgement and Order of the High Court of Bombay upholding
the   setting   aside   sale   of   a   property   by   the   Debt   Recovery
Appellate   Tribunal,   Mumbai   was   not   interfered   with.   The
applicant has prayed for the following relief:
“a.   Clarify   the   Order   dated   12.05.2022   passed   by
this Hon’ble Court to the extent of fixing the rate of
interest   at   which   the   amount   deposited   by   the
applicant   in   2007   is   to   be   refunded,   and   also
mesne   profit,   if   any   to   be   deducted   from   the   said
amount to be refunded to the applicant.”
2. The   auction   sale   confirmed   in   favour   of   the   applicant   M/s.
Rockline   Construction   Company   on   16 th
  May   2007   was   set
aside with the applicant entitled to a refund of the entire sale
amount along with the accrued interest, if any, after deducting
the mesne profits and/or losses. There has been long­standing
litigation  inter se  the parties regarding this transaction. At this
juncture, it is observed that the present case has a chequered
history, but for brevity, only relevant orders are being referred
to.  
3. The   order   dated   07.07.2014   passed   by   the   Debt   Recovery
Appellate   Tribunal,   Mumbai,   in   Miscellaneous   Appeal   bearing
No.   303/2010   titled   as   “Oman   International   Bank   S.A.O.G.   v.

3
M/s   Rockline   Construction   Co.   &   Anr.” ,   holding   the   applicant
entitled to a refund of the amount, is extracted as under:
“(1)   The   appeal   is   allowed   with   no   orders   as   to
costs.  The  order   of   the  DRT  is   set   aside   and  order
of the Recovery Officer has been restored so far the
Original Application is concerned.
(2)   The   Recovery   Officer   is   directed   to   return   Rs.1
Crore   deposited   by   2 nd
  Respondent   Mahendra
Kumar  Kawad  with   accrued  interest  within  7  days
from the copy or receipt of the order.
(3)   The   Original   Applicant/1    st
     respondent   is   also
entitled   to   withdraw   the   entire   sale   amount   with
accrued   interest,   if   any,   (after   deducting   mesne
profits   or   loss)   for   his   wrongful   purpose   on
surrendering   the   entire   possession   of   the   property
to the Bank.
(4)   The   mesne   profits   can   be   ascertained   by
appointing   the   Advocate/Counsel   before   the   DRT
on the application filed by the respective parties.
(5)   The   Bank   is   directed   to   take   appropriate   steps
to recover the amount as per the procedure known
to law.” 
(Emphasis supplied)
4. It is not in dispute that the said order attained finality with the
passing   of   the   order   dated   12.05.2022   by   this   Court   in   a
Special Leave Petition filed by Rockline Construction Company
(supra).   It   is   a   matter   of   record   that   much   prior   thereto,   the

4
applicant   had   already   moved   an   application   seeking   a   refund
of the amount in terms of the order  dated 07.07.2014 passed
by   the   Debt   Recovery   Appellate   Tribunal,   Mumbai,   in   which
vide order dated 13.07.2021, the subject matter of the present
application,   passed   by   the   Recovery   Officer­I,   Mumbai   Debt
Recovery   Tribunal   No.1,   the   applicant   was   held   entitled   to
simple   interest   @   9%   per   annum.   This   is   against   the
applicant's   claim   for   interest   on   such   rate   and   terms   as
normally  govern  business transactions.      The relevant portion
of the order reads as under:
“7. Observations :
7.1
From  the  records it  is observed that  CH Bank  has
taken/charged   interest   @15%   in   the   said   loan
account.   It   appears   that   similarly   bank   earns
interest   on   the   money   by   lending   and   it   may   have
also   used   that   money   Rs.9.56   crore   in   further
lending that would have been fetched interest over
and above 6 percent ranging between 9% to 15% or
above.   Hence,   it   would   be   in   the   interest   of   the
equity   and   justice   to   allow   9%   simple   interest   on
the   sale   consideration   given/deposit   made   by   the
erstwhile auction purchaser.
7.2
From   2007   the   Amount   Rs.9.56   core   @   9%   for   14
years   would   become   216056000.00   (Twenty­One
Crores Sixty Lacs Fifty Six Thousand only).  
7.3

5
In   view   of   the   above   Rs.58580859.00
(Rs.216056000.00   –   Rs.157475141.00)   (Rupees
Five Crore Eighty Five Lacs Eighty Thousand Eight
Hundred Fifty Nine only) is quantified as amount of
which   erstwhile   auction   purchaser/  M/s.  Rockline
Constructions   is   entitled   to   withdraw   on
surrendering   the   entire   possession   of   the   property
to the Bank.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
xxxx
1. xxx
2. xxx
3. Erstwhile   auction   purchaser   M/s   Rockline   is
entitled   for   Rs.58580859.00   (Rupees   Five   Crore
Eighty   Five   Lacs   Eighty   Thousand   Eight
Hundred   Fifty   Nine   only)   after   deducting   the
mesne   profit/loss   as   per   order   of   the   Hon’ble
DRAT and Hon’ble Bombay High Court. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
5. It   is   also   borne   from   the   record   that   assailing   the   same,   the
appellant   preferred   an   appeal   that   is   clear   from   the   bare
reading of the instant application.  
6. In   support   of   its   claim,   the   applicant   has   placed
contemporaneous   material   indicating   the   market   practice   at
which   the   rate   of   interest   is   charged   about   commercial
transactions;   it   is   @14.5%   with   monthly   rests,   subject   to
change from time to time.  
7. There is no dispute that the applicant deposited huge amounts
as part of the auction bid in the year 2007.  

6
8. In   the   backdrop   above,   it   cannot   be   disputed   that   the
applicant   is   entitled   to   interest.   The   only   two   contentious
issues that survive, requiring adjudication, are (i) the rate and
terms of interest to which the applicant would be entitled and
(ii)   the   determination   of   mesne   profits.   In   normal   course,   we
would   have  ourselves  decided  the   same;   however,  considering
the   fact   that   the   appeal  in   relation   to   it  is  pending   before  the
adjudicatory   authority,   being   Appeal   No.8   of   2022,   Debt
Recovery   Appellate   Tribunal,   Mumbai,   we   refrain   from   doing
so,   enabling   the   said   fact­finding   authority   to   do   so,
expeditiously and in accordance with the law.  
9. Before us, it is argued that the appeal is perhaps barred with
the efflux of time. We find this objection, in the attending facts
and   circumstances,   to   be   untenable   given   the   long­standing
pending litigation   inter se   the parties to the   lis.      As such, the
plea of limitation cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the
determination   of   the   applicant's   right   and   entitlement   of
monetary claims on merits.  
10. Hence,   having   considered   the   arguments   put   forth   in   the
application   as   also   the   written   submissions   filed   on   behalf   of

7
the   respondent,   we   dispose   of   the   instant   application   in   the
following terms:
A) The parties shall appear before the appellate authority
on 1 st
 May 2023 and place on record a copy of the order;
B) The   appellate   authority   shall   decide   the   appeal
preferred by the applicant strictly on merits, in accordance
with   the   law,   expeditiously   and   because   each   day’s   delay
would   only   entail   loss   by   way   of   the   addition   of   amount
payable   as   interest,   shall   decide   the   same   within   a   period
of   two   months.   All   parties   shall   fully   cooperate.   The   issue
of limitation shall be deemed to have been closed.
C) Liberty   reserved   to   the   applicant   to   approach   this
Court should the need so arise specifically.  
11. The miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
..........................................J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
.........................................J.
(SANJAY KAROL)

8
Dated : 24 th
 April, 2023;
Place  : New Delhi.