1996 Supreme(MP) 1229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.
Jagmandar Ram Goyal - Petitioner
Vs.
Central Bank of India - Respondent
FA No. 233 of 1994 (J)
Decided On : 22-03-1996

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.20 R.11 – money decree – payment by instalment – claim cannot be made as of right – application should be made before trial Court.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S.34 – loan advanced for commercial purpose – compound interest may be charged.

       (3) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S.34 – imposition of rate of interest – is discretionary with the Court.

       (4) Constitution of India – Arts. 141 and 142 – Supreme Court clearly ordering "this should be confined to this case only" – such case is no precedent under Art. 141 but it comes under Art. 142.

        Short Note

       This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.4.94 passed by Shri S.K. Jain, District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 26 – B/87 decreeing the suit of the respondent – plaintiff – Bank for Rs. 1,42,805.15 P.

       2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

       3. The learned counsel for the appellant made two – fold submissions;

       (i) that the instalment in regard to the payment of the decretal amount has not been made by the Court below; and

       (ii) on the principal amount, instead of simple interest, compound interest has been charged.

       4. As regards the first submission, such a prayer was not made before the Court below and there is no such law conferring the right on the person for being granted instalment in the payment of the decreetal amount. This submission is, therefore, rejected.

       5. So far as the second submission is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in B. Shivananda v. Andhra Bank Ltd. 1994 (4) SCC 368. In that case, the position was different. The question for consideration in that case was for future interest". The Court held that "the Court has discretion under section 34 CPC to award interest. In the said case admittedly loan was for a commercial transaction and in the facts and circumstances of case Court considered it just and proper to direct the appellant to pay simple interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum on the principal amount claimed in the suit from the date of the decree till the date of realization. Supreme Court observed as:

       "this should be confined to this case only, on the peculiar facts of the case."

       6. In view of the above, it is not the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. It is under Art.142 of the Constitution.

       7. The learned counsel further submitted that for taking loan, the property was also mortgaged by the appellant and it was the obligation of the Bank to have disposed of the property for satisfying the loan. The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of M.R. Patil v. S.B. Rainada, AIR 1989 SC 1200.

       8. In the case relied on, the facts were different. The mortgaged property was sold and the question was of redemption. This case has no applicability. The Court had recorded the finding that in the case cited before the trial Court, the compound interest was not chargeable on the loan advanced for agricultural purpose but it was chargeable if the loan was taken for commercial purpose.

       9. I find no merit in the case. The appeal is rejected.