Back
RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Chhinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ravindera Trading Company – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Court upheld the validity of the agreed interest rate between the parties and permitted charging interest at this rate, even though the loan was not specifically for agricultural purposes (!) (!) .
The plaintiff filed a recovery suit for a principal amount of Rs. 4,89,175 and interest totaling Rs. 3,51,384, calculated at an agreed rate of 24% per annum up to the date of filing, with further interest claimed thereafter at the same rate (!) .
The defendant, an agriculturist, disputed the existence of the loan, the interest rate, and claimed that the account details were false and signatures were forged, asserting that he had settled his account in 1999 and had no ongoing debt with the plaintiff (!) .
The trial and appellate courts found in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the existence of the loan and the agreed interest rate, and decreed recovery with interest at 12% per annum during the pendency of the suit and future interest, considering the evidence presented (!) (!) .
The defendant appealed, arguing that the interest rate of 24% was exorbitant, especially since he was an agriculturist, and that post-decree interest should not exceed 6% per annum, particularly for agricultural loans (!) .
The courts rejected these arguments, affirming that the agreed interest rate was fully proved and legally permissible, and that the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to challenge the rate or the nature of the loan (!) (!) .
The appellant's claim that the loan was for agricultural purposes and therefore subject to a lower interest rate was dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting this assertion (!) .
The courts clarified that the law permits the enforcement of agreed interest rates and that the interest on the principal, including accrued interest, can be compounded and awarded during proceedings, irrespective of whether the loan was for agricultural purposes (!) (!) .
Overall, the appeal was dismissed, and the lower courts’ judgments were upheld, confirming the validity of the interest rate, the existence of the loan, and the recovery amount (!) (!) .
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
1. This is defendants second appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,40,549/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum was decreed. At the time of motion hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has inter alia stated that keeping in view the fact that the appellant is an agriculturist the interest rate granted by the Courts below was exorbitant and on the higher side.
2. On the basis of the aforesaid argument notice of motion was issued to the respondent. An offer given by learned counsel for the respondent that plaintiff-respondent was agreeable to charge interest @ of 10% instead of 12%. Since an amicable settlement was in sight, vide order dated 27.5.2009, the case was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat of this Court keeping in view the provisions of Sec.21 of the Legal Services authorities Act, 1987. However, no settlement could be reached between the parties before the Permanent Lok Adalat, and the matter was returned to this court. It may also be mentioned at this stage, that appellant also filed Civil miscellaneous App
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
