Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 667
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
Punjab & Sind Bank
Versus
Mohd. Tayyab & Others
FAO No. 465 of 2007
Decided On : 03-03-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants:Seema Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A.A. Qureshi, Advocate.
The main legal principle established is that the civil courts in Delhi have territorial jurisdiction over a suit for recovery of money, even if the suit is essentially under Order 34 CPC and relief is claimed for sale of mortgaged property situated in another state, as long as the suit is treated as a simple suit for recovery of money and the loan was granted in Delhi.
Headnote:
Territorial Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure Code - The court held that the civil courts in Delhi have territorial jurisdiction over a suit for recovery of money, even if the suit is essentially under Order 34 CPC and relief is claimed for sale of mortgaged property situated in another state, as long as the suit is treated as a simple suit for recovery of money and the loan was granted in Delhi.
Fact of the Case:
The first appeal was filed against the trial court's judgment holding that the courts in Delhi will not have territorial jurisdiction over a suit essentially under Order 34 CPC because the mortgaged property is situated in another state.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit could be treated as a simple suit for recovery of money, and as the loan was granted in Delhi and the defendants resided in Delhi, the civil courts in Delhi had territorial jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the civil courts in Delhi had territorial jurisdiction over a suit essentially under Order 34 CPC for recovery of money when the mortgaged property was situated in another state.
Ratio Decidendi: The court adopted the ratios of various Supreme Court judgments to exercise its powers under Section 34 CPC to reduce the pendente lite and future interest, considering the new economic scenario and falling interest rates.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.4,84,060/- along with pendente lite and future interest at 9% per annum simple, and allowed the appeal to the extent stated.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral)
CM No. 17793/2007 (delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. CM stands disposed of.
FAO 465/2007 & CM No. 17794/2007(stay)
1. This first appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC against the judgment of the trial court dated 26.3.2007 holding that the courts at Delhi will not have territorial jurisdiction because the mortgaged property with respect to which relief was claimed in the suit is situated at Bijnor in U.P.
2. It could not be disputed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff that the suit is essentially under Order 34 CPC because the plaint mentions the details of the mortgaged property and relief is also claimed for sale of the mortgaged property. Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff however states that the suit be treated as a simple suit for recovery of money and prayer with respect to mortgaged property be deleted therefrom and in which case courts will have jurisdiction because loan is granted at Delhi and the defendants are residing at Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants could not dispute that defendants are residing in Delhi and that even the loan was granted at Delhi. Once the suit is a simple suit for recovery of money, civil courts at Delhi will have territorial jurisdiction.
4. It may be noted that the trial court has decided all issues in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, except the issue of territorial jurisdiction and therefore, I need not burden this judgment with the findings of the trial court and I adopt the same for decreeing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff against the defendants for a sum of Rs.4,84,060.
5. I note that the rate of interest which is prayed for in this case is 11.25% per annum with monthly rests. Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that in view of the new economic scenario where rates of interest have fallen, courts should not grant high rates of interest pendente lite and future. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC).
6. Adopting the ratios of the aforesaid judgments, I exercise my powers under Section 34 CPC to reduce the pendente lite and future interest as stated below.
7. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.4,84,060/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest at 9% per annum simple. Plaintiff will be entitled to court fees paid in the suit as costs in addition to the aforesaid amount. Decree sheet be drawn.
8. The appeal is allowed and disposed of to the extent as stated above.
9. Whatever amount the respondents/defendants have paid after filing of the suit, the appellant-bank would have to give adjustment of the same in order to determine the amount which would be net payable under the judgment and decree passed today.
