Dismissed

Saloni Equipments and Exports Co. v. Mrs. Thelma Kenneth Peddar and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2006APP/157/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of an appeal against an order granting leave to defend a summary suit. The court held the appellant liable as drawer, struck down a 30% interest claim, and limited interest to 18% under the Negotiable Instruments Act following respondent counsel's concession. Approval of the lower court's leave to defend.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands disposed of with interest limited to 18% per annum.

Saloni Equipments and Exports Co. Vs Mrs. Thelma… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

 APPEAL NO.157 OF 2006

¶3

 Saloni Equipments
 & Exports Co. ..Appellants.

¶4

Vs.

¶5

 Mrs.Thelma Kenneth
 Peddar & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶6

 Mr.Kamal Khatta i/b.Mr.Anil Agarwal for the
 Appellants.

¶7

 Mr.Snehal Shah i/b.M/s.Rustamji & Ginwala for
 Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
 S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ.
DATED: 25TH JULY, 2006

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

 By consent, the Appeal is admitted and heard
 finally. The impugned order granting conditional
 leave to the Appellants to defend the Summary Suit
 warrants no interference.

¶11

 2. The Appellant is admittedly liable on the suit
 bill of exchange as a drawer.

¶12

 3. The main grievance is the claim of interest at

¶13

 30% per annum. Admittedly, the bill of exchange did
 not specify the rate of interest. Thus, the claim in
 suit for interest at 30% per annum is unfounded.

¶14

 : 2 :

¶15

 4. Mr.Shah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
 of the Respondent, fairly made a statement that the
 Respondent/Plaintiff would restrict the claim for
 interest at 18% per annum in accordance with the
 provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus,
 even if a decree is passed, for any reason, interest
 would be limited to 18% per annum.

¶16

 5. The contention that the part payment should be
 adjusted towards the principal, in the first
 instance, is not well founded. While making part
 payment, the Appellant did not specify that the same
 should be appropriated towards the principal amount.
 The Respondent adjusted the same as it was entitled
 to adjust the same towards interest in the first
 instance.

¶17

 6. With the above clarification, the Appeal stands
 disposed of.

¶18

(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

¶19

 (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

Saloni Equipments and Exports Co. v. Mrs. Thelma Kenneth Peddar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saloni Equipments and Exports Co. v. Mrs. Thelma Kenneth Peddar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S N.S. Trading Co. Vs Icici Bank Limited and Ors.

K. Kurian Babu Vs Usha Badri Poonawala

Renu Singh W/O. Navin Singh and Ors. Vs Allied Construction and Anr.

s.r. khanna Vs pradeep r. mafatlal and Ors.

sahara india tv network Vs the state of maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Texmaco Ltd. Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd.