A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, PABITRA KUMAR BANERJEE
UNITED BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
RASHYAN UDYOG – Respondent
( 1 ) THE only question involved in these two appeals at the instance of the decree-holder Bank is whether the trial Court was wrong in not granting the pendente lite and also post-decree interest, while decreeing the two suits giving rise to these two appeals, warranting our intervention.
( 2 ) THE trial Judge, while decreeing these two suits, said nothing about the pendente lite as well as post-decree interest and must therefore be held to have refused such interest and, as has been made clear in the Memorandum of Appeal in both the appeals, the appeals are directed "against the portion of the judgment and Decree refusing pendente lite interest and interest on the decretal amount till realisation. "
( 3 ) EXACTION of interest on loan, more often than not, operates harshly on the debtors. Our ancient Hindu Law condemned such practice. Vasista said (Vasista-Sanhita, Chapter II, Verses 36042) that "if destruction of foetus and exaction of interest were weighed in balance, the destroyer of foetus would go upon the scale and Usurer would fall down", and commenting on this, Dr. P. N. Sen in his Tagore Law Lecturers on Hindu Jurisprudence (1918, page 300) said
REFERRED TO : Pomal v. Vrajlal
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Kumar Purnendu Nath
State Bank of India v. Amal Kumar Sen
Sudhangshu Mohan Chakraborty v. Life Insurance Corporation of India
State Bank of India v. B.Gupta
United Bank of India v. New Glencoe Tea Co.
West Bengal Financial Corpn. v. Bertram Scott
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nathabhai Desaibhai
Nilmoni Sardar v. Baidyanath Das
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.