Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Punjab National Bank – Appellant
Versus
Kana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by plaintiff- appellant against the judgment and decree dated 12-8-1991 passed by the District Judge Jaipur District, in Suit No.82/1981, whereby and whereunder dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.13,570.07 and future interest.
2. The facts of the case are that respondents defendants No.1&2 (hereafter 'the defendants') obtained agricultural loan of Rs.4000/- from plaintiff Bank on 31-1-1970 and mortgaged certain agricultural land, and defendants Nos.3 to 6 are legal representatives of the guarantor. Plaintiff claimed that loan was to be repaid in six monthly instalments along with interest at the rate of 5% above the rate of Reserve Bank of India, but minimum 9% per annum. Since defendants No.1&2 failed to repay the agricultural loan, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of agricultural loan on 9-11-1981.
3. On issuing notices respondents-defendants No.1&2 (hereafter 'the defendants') filed written statement on 26-9-1986 and denied to have taken any loan and stated that the agent appointed by plaintiff bank obtained signatures of many agriculturists but no amount was paid to agriculturists. The said agent obtai
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to banking regulations and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India in determining the recovery of agricultural ....
The court established that while a lender is entitled to recover loan amounts, the interest rate must be reasonable and within statutory limits, reflecting judicial discretion.
The court clarified that while contractual interest is enforceable, penal interest cannot be capitalized, ensuring fair treatment in loan recovery cases.
The court upheld the trial Court's decree, ruling that defendants engaged in business do not qualify for debt relief under applicable laws.
The burden of proof lies with the Defendant to establish discharge of debt, and the absence of clear evidence leads to dismissal of the appeal.
(1) Appellant bank did not produce any document to prove that it initiated steps to recover this amt. from any members including the Respondent.(2) Wanton negligence is writ large on Appellant bank’s....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
