SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(Cal) 77

BACHAWAT
SUBURBAN BANK LTD. (IN LIQDN. ) – Appellant
Versus
NISTARAN CHAKRABARTI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.C.LAHIRI, ARUN MUKHERJEE, P.C.MULICK, SUDHAMOY BOSE

BACHAWAT, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 1604/12/- in respect of an overdraft account. Admittedly this claim is not barred by the law of limitation. Interest on this account was charged at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum with monthly rests. The bank is not a scheduled bank. It is not alleged nor proved that the loans were commercial loans. The rate of interest being excessive the accounts must be reopened under the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act. It is admitted by both parties that on such reopening and on taking accounts in accordance with the provisions of that Act only a sum of Rs. 350/- is due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is accordingly entitled to a decree for the sum of Rs. 350/- against the defendant in respect of this account.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff claims another sum of Rs. 16,751/4/9 in respect of three loans of Rs. 6. 000/-, Rs. 5. 000/ and Rs. 1,000/-, all advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on 27-6-1945. On the same date the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff three promissory notes all carrying interest at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests.- The plaintiff bank is now in liquidation.
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top