In a regular first appeal challenging a decree for recovery of a loan, the court affirmed the lower court's findings. It held that upon default, the right to claim concessional interest ceases, allowing the lender to charge commercial rates.
The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court record was sent back.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
RFA No.77/2001
%
1st February, 2011
Dr. Gurbachan Singh Awla S/o Shri Kundan Singh, R/o F-119, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065
...... Appellant Through: None
VERSUS
Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. having its registered office at A/3-4, State Emporia Building, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001 And having its Head Office at Bombay Life Building, N-36, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
… Respondent
Through: Dr. S. L. Gupta, Attorney and husband of respondent and Dr. (Mrs.) Nisha Ravi Gupta.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Page 1 of 3
RFA No.77/2001
no.11 on the Regular Board of this court today. I have therefore perused the record and I am proceeding to dispose of the matter.
Page 2 of 32 of 3 of 33
respondent/plaintiff was entitled only to the normal rate of 2.5% per annum and not commercial rate of interest being 21% per annum. 4. The trial court has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Anil Kashyap reported in 56(1994) Delhi Law Times 637 in which in similar facts it was held that the right to claim concession ceases when once there is default in repayment of the loan beyond the prescribed period, and for the period beyond the contractual period commercial interest can be charged. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the trial court. After all the appellant/defendant was liable to pay the loan. It cannot mean that even beyond the contractual period, the appellant is only liable to pay a concessional contractual interest @ 2.5%. This court would not interfere in the findings of the trial court merely because two views are possible, unless the view taken by the trial court is illegal or cause great injustice, I do not find that justice requires interfering with the impugned judgment/decree.
The appeal is therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial court record be sent back.
FEBRUARY 1, 2011 vld
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Page 3 of 3
RFA No.77/2001
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in holding that upon default, the respondent is entitled to commercial interest of 21% per annum instead of the concessional contractual rate of 2.5% per annum.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Anil KashyapRelied on¶4
Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Anil Kashyap reported in 56(1994) Delhi Law Times 637
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Gurbachan Singh Awla
Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
Valmiki J. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
