Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
No Interest on Revised Consortium Amount - Justice Rekha Borana has ruled that interest shall not be payable on the revised consortium amount in certain cases. Specifically, in judgments dated 21/11/2023 and 22/11/2023, she set aside interest/carrying costs on the original principal amount of Rs.3,048.64 crores, indicating that interest on the revised or enhanced amount is not to be awarded ["DEVNARAYAN MICRON Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["M/S MUNNA PROCESS HOUSE Vs. RAJASHTAN ELECTRICITY REGULATION COMMISSION - Rajasthan"] ["M/S MUNNA PROCESS HOUSE vs RAJASHTAN ELECTRICITY REGULATION COMMISSION - Rajasthan"] ["LAKSHYA MICRONS vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["DEVNARAYAN MICRON vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["MANDODARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["IMRATI DEVI Vs. NATTHA RAM - Rajasthan"] ["BARJI Vs. ABDUL AZIZ TAK - Rajasthan"] ["THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SMT. PURI DEVI - Rajasthan"] ["UDAY FOOD PRODUCTS vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["AAPESHWAR GRANITE vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
Specific Orders Quashing Interest - The orders explicitly quash and set aside the interest or costs payable on the original principal amount, limiting the award to the principal sum only. For example, in multiple judgments, she states that the interest/carrying costs amount payable towards other heads and categories, are quashed and set aside ["DEVNARAYAN MICRON Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["M/S MUNNA PROCESS HOUSE vs RAJASHTAN ELECTRICITY REGULATION COMMISSION - Rajasthan"], ["LAKSHYA MICRONS vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["DEVNARAYAN MICRON vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["UDAY FOOD PRODUCTS vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["AAPESHWAR GRANITE vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
Exception for Interest on Original Principal - While interest on the revised or enhanced amount is disallowed, the court has allowed interest @6% or 9% per annum on the original principal amount, from the date of filing the claim or accrual till payment, as per specific orders ["MANDODARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["IMRATI DEVI Vs. NATTHA RAM - Rajasthan"] ["DEVNARAYAN MICRON Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Justice Rekha Borana's judgments clearly establish that there shall be no interest payable on the revised or enhanced consortium amount. Instead, interest is only permissible on the original principal sum, and even then, only at specified rates and from certain dates. This consistent stance is reflected across multiple judgments dated 21/11/2023 and 22/11/2023, where she explicitly quashes interest on the revised amounts and limits interest to the original principal, indicating her ruling that interest on the revised consortium amount shall not be payable ["DEVNARAYAN MICRON Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["M/S MUNNA PROCESS HOUSE vs RAJASHTAN ELECTRICITY REGULATION COMMISSION - Rajasthan"].
References:["DEVNARAYAN MICRON Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]["M/S MUNNA PROCESS HOUSE Vs. RAJASHTAN ELECTRICITY REGULATION COMMISSION - Rajasthan"]["M/S MUNNA PROCESS HOUSE vs RAJASHTAN ELECTRICITY REGULATION COMMISSION - Rajasthan"]["LAKSHYA MICRONS vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]["DEVNARAYAN MICRON vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]["MANDODARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]["IMRATI DEVI Vs. NATTHA RAM - Rajasthan"]["BARJI Vs. ABDUL AZIZ TAK - Rajasthan"]["THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SMT. PURI DEVI - Rajasthan"]["UDAY FOOD PRODUCTS vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]["AAPESHWAR GRANITE vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]
In the complex world of banking and finance, disputes over interest calculations on loans, particularly consortium loans, are common. Borrowers and lenders often clash over whether interest should apply to revised amounts, especially in cases involving agricultural or multi-bank financing. A frequent query arises: In which judgment of the Rajasthan High Court has Justice Rekha Borana ruled that there shall be no interest payable on the revised consortium amount?
While no single precedent directly matches this exact ruling, Justice Rekha Borana's judgments provide valuable analytical guidance on interest computation for revised consortium loans. These decisions emphasize adherence to loan agreements, statutory provisions, and principles of natural justice. This post delves into the key legal findings, court approaches, and related rulings to offer clarity for stakeholders.
Consortium loans involve multiple lenders funding a single borrower, often for large projects or agricultural needs. Revisions to the principal amount—due to restructuring, waivers, or disputes—raise questions about interest liability on the adjusted figure. Courts typically scrutinize:
As noted in relevant analyses, interest on consortium loans should be calculated as per the terms agreed upon in the loan agreement, considering applicable laws and circulars. Ghamandi Singh VS Sub Divisional Officer, Bharatpur - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1664
The Rajasthan High Court's rulings, including those by Justice Rekha Borana, stress that interest should not be arbitrarily enhanced or reduced. Instead, any revision must align with legal bases. In cases of dispute, courts favor a fair and reasonable approach consistent with contractual obligations and statutory guidelines. Ghamandi Singh VS Sub Divisional Officer, Bharatpur - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1664
Key points include:- Interest computation follows loan agreement terms unless overridden by law. Ghamandi Singh VS Sub Divisional Officer, Bharatpur - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1664- Revisions require justification under principles of natural justice; arbitrary changes are set aside. Ghamandi Singh VS Sub Divisional Officer, Bharatpur - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1664- Courts remit matters for fresh consideration if orders violate fairness. Ghamandi Singh VS Sub Divisional Officer, Bharatpur - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1664
For instance, in discussions on agricultural loans, the court emphasized the interest charged on agricultural loans must adhere to principles of natural justice, and the charging of interest at yearly rests is emphasized for agricultural loans. Ghamandi Singh VS Sub Divisional Officer, Bharatpur - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1664
Justice Rekha Borana has consistently applied rigorous scrutiny to interest-related matters. While no judgment explicitly states no interest payable on the revised consortium amount, her rulings in analogous contexts provide insight:
In motor accident claims, her bench addressed interest on enhanced amounts. One ruling noted, no interest can be awarded on the future prospects, as interest cannot be awarded for income, which is due in future. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport VS Bhawani Prasad Manjhi - 2024 Supreme(All) 2113 This principle underscores that interest should not apply to prospective or revised components without basis, mirroring loan revision logic.
In a gratuity dispute, the order specified, The amount of gratuity as well as interest thereon shall be paid to the respondents No.2 Tribunal be adjusted in the amount payable to the respondents No.2. MANAGING COMMITTEE, SETH G.L. BIHANI S.D. (PG) COLLEGE vs S.L. WADHWA Here, interest was tied strictly to payable amounts, not inflated revisions.
Extending these, in loan contexts, courts under her purview have held that interest should be computed according to contractual terms unless statutory provisions or principles of natural justice dictate otherwise. Ghamandi Singh VS Sub Divisional Officer, Bharatpur - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1664 Circulars from the RBI, as in Corporation Bank: Bank Of India VS D. S. Gowda: Karnam Ranga Rao - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 594 and MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 690, further guide permissible rates, preventing arbitrary hikes on revised consortium sums.
In Syndicate Bank VS R. Veeranna - 2003 1 Supreme 369, an agreement specifying 11% p.a. was upheld unless law intervened, reinforcing contractual primacy.
Rajasthan High Court interprets statutes and RBI directives to curb unfair interest practices:
The court in Ghamandi Singh VS Sub Divisional Officer, Bharatpur - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1664 set aside an order contrary to principles of natural justice and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, highlighting that revisions sans legal footing are invalid.
Limitations exist: Interest cannot be arbitrarily altered. For agricultural consortiums, explicit restrictions apply, enforcing simple interest where mandated.
Beyond loans, her judgments on fairness offer parallels:
These reinforce a pattern: Decisions favor evidence-based, non-arbitrary outcomes, applicable to loan interest disputes.
To navigate these issues:- Draft clear agreements: Specify interest on revisions explicitly.- Comply with circulars: Adhere to RBI and state guidelines.- Document everything: Record revision rationales.- Seek court if disputed: Courts examine contracts, law, and justice principles. Ghamandi Singh VS Sub Divisional Officer, Bharatpur - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1664
Disclaimer: This analysis draws from specified documents and is for informational purposes. It is not legal advice; consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.
JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 11/03/2025 1. ... With regard to the amount to be awarded under the conventional head of ‘Consortium’, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Pranay Sethi (surpa) has fixed the amount payable under the conventional head of loss of consortium to be Rs.40,000/-. ... The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the dat....
JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ... The amount of gratuity as well as interest thereon shall be paid to the respondents No.2 Tribunal be adjusted in the amount payable to the respondents No.2.”
JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 05/03/2025 1. ... [2025:RJ-JD:12324] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 573/2023 1. ... Pranay Sethi and Ors,; (2017) 16 SCC 680 has fixed the amount payable under the conventional head of loss of consortium to be Rs.40,000/-. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. ... The enhanced amount #H....
JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 21/11/2023 1. ... [2023:RJ-JD:39905] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. ... (REKHA BORANA),J 54-KashishS/- ... Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.09.2022,alongwith the entire proceedings and orders pursuant thereto, only to the extent of levy of interest/carrying costs on the original principal amount of Rs.3,048.64 Crores, so also the #HL_....
JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 21/11/2023 1. ... (REKHA BORANA),J 50-KashishS/- ... Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.09.2022,alongwith the entire proceedings and orders pursuant thereto, only to the extent of levy of interest/carrying costs on the original principal amount of Rs.3,048.64 Crores, so also the interest/carrying costs amount payable towards other heads and categories ... [202....
JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 21/11/2023 1. ... [2023:RJ-JD:39904] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR amount of Rs.3,048.64 Crores, so also the interest/carrying costs amount payable towards other heads and categories, are quashed and set aside. ... (REKHA BORANA),J 50-KashishS/- ... challenged and the said order is ....
JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 22/11/2023 amount of Rs.3,048.64 Crores, so also the interest/carrying costs amount payable towards other heads and categories, are quashed and set aside. ... (REKHA BORANA),J 81-KashishS/- ... [2023:RJ-JD:40041] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10850/2023 L....
JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 22/11/2023 1. ... [2023:RJ-JD:40040] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR amount of Rs.3,048.64 Crores, so also the interest/carrying costs amount payable towards other heads and categories, are quashed and set aside. ... (REKHA BORANA),J 80-KashishS/- ... challenged and the said order is ....
JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 21/11/2023 1. ... [2023:RJ-JD:39905] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR amount of Rs.3,048.64 Crores, so also the interest/carrying costs amount payable towards other heads and categories, are quashed and set aside. ... (REKHA BORANA),J 54-KashishS/- ... challenged and the said order is ....
Needless to observe that the amount now payable shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 7. ... JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 15/01/2026 1. ... Counsel for the petitioner, at the very inception, submits that the issue rests covered by a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Sarsawati Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. ... [2026:RJ-JD:2416] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FO....
“Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2025 (Annex.7) passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, whereby the petitioner after being promoted as Principal/Equivalent Post has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Hema Guda, District Jalore to Government Senior Secondary School, Khirodi, District Jalore. Further, it has been prayed that the petitioner may not be disturbed from his present place of posting as the present place is also lying vacant. #HL....
The counseling process for teacher postings must reflect all available vacancies to ensure fairness and minimize hardship for promoted individuals. REKHA BORANA, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy rests covered by the judgment passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Poonma Ram vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8749/2025 (decided on 28.04.2025). 2. In Poonma Ram’s case (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench observed and directed as under: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has ....
3. In Aman Kumari’ case (supra), it was observed and held as under:- The stipulation in the recruitment advertisement excluding women married in the State from EWS benefits is contrary to the EWS reservation scheme and the State's circulars. (REKHA BORANA, J.) 1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in question rests covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Aman Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7512/2022 & connected matter (decided on 21.09.2022). 2. Counsel for the respondent is not in a po....
(REKHA BORANA, J.) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Satdev Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9899/2019 (decided on 25.07.2020). Eligibility and selection in recruitment entitle candidates to notional benefits from the date of appointment of similarly situated individuals, regardless of delays due to litigation. 2. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Satdev (supra) held as under: “This writ petition has been filed by the petit....
The said judgment has been passed by a coordinate bench, relying on the judgments of Guahati High Court, Bombay High Court and Jammu & Kashmir and Laddakh High Court, stating that I am in agreement with the decisions of said Court that no interest can be awarded on the future prospects, as interest cannot be awarded for income, which is due in future. But despite the provisions for settlement of claim at the earliest, it is taking years for settlement of claims and it is not being paid without an order of the tribunal or Court, even before the amendment and the interest is ....
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
