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

1989 Supreme(Cal) 182

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, PABITRA KUMAR BANERJEE
UNITED BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
RASHYAN UDYOG – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASHISH GHOSH, ASHOK BANERJI, CHANDRA NATH MUKHERJI, Debi Pal, DILIP SENGUPTA

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 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














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