Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Jagdish

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2012RSA/1034/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a decree awarding interest at a rate lower than the contractual rate, the court held that post-decree and pendente lite interest under Section 34 CPC is discretionary. Finding no substantial question of law or patent illegality, the second appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal by the appellant State Bank of India against the interest award in the lower appellate decree was dismissed.

State Bank of India Vs Jagdish — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.1034 of 1992

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1034 of 1992

¶5

Date of decision:- 17.04.2012

¶6

State Bank of India ....Appellant Vs.

¶7

Jagdish ....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶10

None for the respondent.

¶11

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶12

Plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby interest at the agreed rate only on the principal amount of Rs.80,000/- till the date of realization was awarded.

¶13

Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,64,520/- for nonpayment of the loan for the purchase of tractor amounting to Rs.80,000/-. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and awarded agreed rate of interest from the date of filing of the suit upto the date of decree and 6% p.a. Future interest from the date of decree till realization. The appellant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge accepted the appeal of the Bank and allowed interest at the agreed rate on the principal amount of Rs.80,000/- till the date of realization. It is the said decree, which is challenged by the Bank in the second appeal.

¶14

RSA No.1034 of 1992

¶15

¶16

The appellant claims future interest at the agreed rate of interest with half yearly interest on the decreetal amount of Rs.1,64,520/-

¶17

I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal nor is framed by the appellant. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates the payment of interest for a period prior to institution of the suit as also the interest from the date of the decree to the date of payment, as a Court deems reasonable on the principal sum adjudged. It, thus, transpires that the Court has discretion to award interest, which shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest, but it is not mandatory that the Court must grant the future interest at the contractual rate of interest. Such is the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & others AIR 2001 SC 3095, wherein it has been held to the following effect:

¶18

“55. xxx xxx xxx

¶19

(8) Award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is discretionary with the court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 CPC dehors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually advanced the court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post-decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline awarding such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously and for reasons and not in an arbitrary or fanciful manner.”

¶20

In view of the above, the discretion exercised by the learned first Appellate Court cannot be said to unjustified. I do not find

¶21

RSA No.1034 of 1992

¶22

¶23

that there is any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court or any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal.

¶24

Dismissed. 17.04.2012 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE

State Bank of India v. Jagdish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Jagdish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Emm Enn Associates Vs Union of India and Anr.

Smt. Trishna Kaundal Vs State of Punjab

(O&M) Jit Singh Vs Bikram Singh and Ors.

Girdhari Lal Thapar Vs Longowal Traders etc.

Rattan Kaur etc. Vs Rabi etc.

(O&M) Pyare Lal Vs Mehtab