Supreme Court of India
Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra & Ors on 7 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 1995 SC 68, 1996 (5) SCC 279, (1996) 2 BANK CAS 342, (1997) 1 BOM CR 508, (1996) 3 CUR CC 97, (1996) 87 COM CAS 289, (1996) 3 CIV LJ 698, (1997) BANK J 126, (1996) 2 RRR 659, (1996) 5 JT 589, 1996 ALL CJ 2 1437, (1996) 2 GUJ LR 515, (1996) 1 GUJ LH 389, (1996) 2 CTC 528 (SC), (1996) 5 JT 589 (SC), 1998 (9) SCC 689, 1998 BOMRC 508, (1999) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 552, (1999) 1 PUN LR 630, (1999) 1 RENCR 114, (1999) 2 CIVILCOURTC 132, (1999) 2 RECCIVR 632, 1999 SCFBRC 123
Author: K. Ramaswamy
Bench: K. Ramaswamy
PETITIONER: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: RAVINDRA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT07/05/1995 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIKWITHSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 3954/94, 9082 AND 9088/1995ANDCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3964, 3967 OF 1992 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R After hearing learned Attorney General and amicus curaie S/shri A. Subba Rao, Ranjit Kumar and K.M.K. Nair on (the interpretation of the provisions of Section 34, CPC on "the principal sum adjudged" the matter s required to be considered by a Constitution Bench. The learned Attorney General has drawn our attention to the judgments of this Court in Corporation Bank vs. D.S. Gouda & Ors. [(1994) SCC 213] and Bank of Baroda vs. Jagannath [C.A. No.2785/87] decided on September 21, 1994 wherein he sought to draw the deduction that the principal sum adjudged and the principal sum mentioned later would be the same. he seeks to take support from the word "such" in support of his contention. Preceding Amendment Act 66 of 1956, the words were "aggregate sum so adjudged" and after Amendment, were substituted with the words "the principal sum adjudged", from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such "principal sum"
for any period prior to the institution of the suit (with further interest on such date as the court deems reasonable on the "principal sum"). The distinction, therefore, was not drawn to the attention of this Court in the aforesaid two judgments in particular later one. As a fact no argument in this behalf appears to have been canvassed. Interpretation of the liability of the borrower to pay interest on the principal sum to include interest that became merged with the principal sum adjudged or principal sum as lent, is required to be authoritatively laid down by a Bench of five Judges.
The Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting the Constitution Bench.