Dismissed

K.Phool Singh v. Kanchan Kakkar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2009CR/3903/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition challenging a lower appellate court's decree granting recovery of Rs. 17,291/- with interest. The court declined to interfere as the amount had been recovered from a guarantor and found no reason to alter the decree.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the lower appellate court's judgment and decree were left undisturbed.

K.Phool Singh Vs Kanchan Kakkar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.R. No. 3903 of 2005 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: 18.2.2009

K. Phool Singh

... .Petitioner

Versus

Mrs. Kanchan Kakkar and others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶10

Present:Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. K.R. Dhawan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

RAJESH BINDAL J

¶13

¶14

The challenge in the present petition is to the judgment and decree of learned lower Appellate Court whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest at the agreed rate of 3 ½ percent per month till the filing of the suit and 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that Court below has committed illegality in decreeing the suit which was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The interest claimed on the loan of Rs. 10,000/- was 3.5 percent per month which was exhorbitant. The Court should not have permitted for charging of interest at such rate. He further submitted that learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence produced on record by the parties in correct perspective as execution of document was not fully proved.

¶16

On the other land learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the amount in question was paid to the petitioner as loan by way of bank cheque. In execution of the decree she has already received the amount in question. The rate of interest as was claimed by him in the suit was as per the terms of the agreement. As far as the interest from the date of filing of suit is concerned, the learned Court below had only granted @ 6 % per annum though the respondent No.1/plaintiff was entitled to contractual rate of interest.

¶17

Considering the fact that it was a loan of merely Rs. 10,000/- and the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 17,291/- way back in 1995, and the decretal amount having already been recovered by the respondent No.1/decree holder from the guarantor, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present revision petition at this stage and the same is dismissed.

¶18

(RAJESH BINDAL) 18.2.2009 JUDGE Reema

K.Phool Singh v. Kanchan Kakkar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Phool Singh v. Kanchan Kakkar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumari Vs Vinod Kumar and Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs Malkiat Singh and Ors.

Piyare Lal Vs State of Pb.

Gurdev Singh Vs Union Territory, Chd.

Daljeet Singh Vs Rajbir Singh and Ors.

Kundan Vs Balwan and Ors.