High Court Of Calcutta
BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK, AMARENDRA CHANDRA SENGUPTA
VIJAYA BANK - Appellant
Versus
TREND EXPORTS - Respondent
Appeal 366 Of 1989
Decided On : 02/28/1990
The judgement outlines general principles applicable to money suits relating to interest and installments under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the question of interest is a matter of discretion for the court and that such discretion extends to the question of whether to grant any interest at all, as well as the rate or amount of interest. The court held that the court should generally adhere to the interest rate agreed upon by the parties unless it is not considered equitable to do so. However, the court is not bound to grant interest at the agreed rate, even if it is mentioned in the agreement that interest is to be paid at the agreed rate till realization. The court also held that the court should give reasons for granting interest at a rate lower than the agreed rate. The court further held that the court has the discretion to grant installments for payment of the decretal amount, but that such installments can only be granted for "any sufficient reason" as laid down by Order 20 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
None
Finding of the Court:
None
Issues: None
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The question of interest is a matter of discretion for the court and that such discretion extends to the question of whether to grant any interest at all, as well as the rate or amount of interest. 2. The court should generally adhere to the interest rate agreed upon by the parties unless it is not considered equitable to do so. 3. The court is not bound to grant interest at the agreed rate, even if it is mentioned in the agreement that interest is to be paid at the agreed rate till realization. 4. The court should give reasons for granting interest at a rate lower than the agreed rate. 5. The court has the discretion to grant installments for payment of the decretal amount, but that such installments can only be granted for "any sufficient reason" as laid down by Order 20 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision: None
( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against decrees passed in favour of various banks, mostly nationalised banks, in various suits instituted by them for money decree on account of the amount lent and advanced by them and for other reliefs.
( 2 ) SOME important questions of law are raised before us in connection with these suits which also arise in various other proceedings of this nature from time to time. 'the questions Involved relate to (a) the interest for the period prior to the institution of the suit; (b) interim interest, that is, interest from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of the decree; (c) further interest i. e. interest on judgment and (d) instalments to be granted; if any, for payment of the decretal amount.
( 3 ) VARIOUS suits were instituted in this Court by different nationalised Banks for recovery of huge amounts due from their constituents on account of money lent and advanced by the Banks. In these cases money decrees were passed. The Court also directed interest to be paid under three headings as specified above. The Courts have also granted instalments. In all these cases it is the Banks who have preferred appeals, though the decrees have been passed in their favour, being aggrieved by the Court's directions regarding interest and also the instalments granted for payment of the decretal dues. All these appeals involve such common questions of law relating to the same.
( 4 ) AT the request of the learned Advocates for the parties, all these appeals were set down for hearing together and learned Advocates appearing for different parties in different appeals have very thoroughly made submissions before us on these points. It was agreed that we should first lay down the general principles applicable in respect of the aforesaid questions, after hearing the interested parties, as a form of guideline, which would be common to all these cases and thereafter we shall deal with each and every individual case depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly these appeals were hears together for a considerable time and the judgment was reserved.
( 5 ) WE may however make one thug clear. We are dealing with general principles applicable to money suits relating to all these questions where in same cases there are also prayers for declaration of charge relating to moveables with a prayer for sale of the same. We are not, in this judgment, dealing with mortgage suits where a preliminary decree is passed or redemption suits. We are not also dealing with 'these questions in respect of other proceedings, e. g. arbitration proceedings.
( 6 )
( 7 ) RELEVANT ACTS:7. 1. Before we deal with the respective submissions we shall set out the different provisions of different Act relied upon before us -7. 2. Section: 34 Code of Civil Procedure. Interest.- (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, 36 (with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum), from the date of the decree to the date of payment; or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit: (Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation I.- In this sub-section, "nationalised Bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings)
Pannalal andAnr. v. Nihari Chand
Jatindra Nath Chowdhury v. Uday Kumar Das and Ors.
Lala Hamim Ram v. Lala Ganga Ram
Soli Pestonji Majoo v. Ganga Bhar Khemka
Jagannath Prosad Singh Chowdhury v. Surajmal Jalal
Everest Financial Corporation and Ors. v. Gujarat State Financial Corporation
Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Natson Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd.
Maganlal v. Jaiswal Industries
State of W.B. v. Ajit Kumar Mukherjee
United Bank of India v. Eshani Rubber Industries
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. S.K.Trading and Ors.
Printers Mysore (P) Ltd. v. Poltan Joseph
Bimal Singh Kothari .v. Muir Mills
Hriday Kanto Goel v. Jogesh Chandra
State Bank of India v. B.Gupta (Tea) Pvt. Ltd. and.Ors
Central Bank of India v. Messrs. P.R.Garments Industries
K.Appa Rao v. V.L.Varadaraj and Ors.
State of M.P. v. Nathabhai Desaibhai Patel
United Bank of India v. Hind Hossiery Mill
United Bank of India v. The New Glance Tea Co.Ltd.
Mahabir Prasad Rungra v. Durga Dutta
West Bengal Financial Corporation v. Bertram Scott (I) Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.