Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Shree Bharat Laxmi Wool Store, ... vs Punjab National Bank And Another on 28 November, 1991

Haryana Financial Corporation vs Pnb Auto Ancillary (India) Ltd. (In ... on 14 July, 1993

In another case, Shree Bharat Laxmi Wool Store v. Punjab National Bank, [1993] 1 BC 113, the Supreme Court dealt with the position as it prevailed prior to the amendment of section 34 and had modified the High Court order affirming the trial court decree by allowing interest on the decretal sum only at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. In that view of the matter, the only question which remains to be considered on this point of granting future interest under the decree is as to whether awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent. is a mere illegality in the order or such a decree to the extent it goes beyond what the court is empowered to do under section 34 is beyond the jurisdiction of the court and, as such, can be ignored.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Rohtash Financiers (P) Ltd. on 10 December, 1996

(10) The learned counsel for the judgment debtor, however, cited the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Shree Bharat Laxmi Wool Store, Panipat and others vs. Punjab National Bank and another , for his contention that the award of future interest under section 34 Civil Procedure Code (before amendment by Act 104 of 1976) could not be more than 6% per annum. This decision will have no application to the instant case as the future interest was awarded not under section 34 Civil Procedure Code but under Order 20 Rule 11 CPC. Where the Court defers the payment of the decretal amount or makes it payable by instalments, Section 34 Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked and therefore, resort to the said Section by the judgment debtor is of no avail. This view is supported by a Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gordhandas Madhavji and others vs. M/s. Valmji Khetsi 1967 Gujarat, 276. The Court speaking through P.N. Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was) held as follows:- "ORDER20, Rule 11 is a self-contained provision dealing with the power of the Court to make an order postponing payment of the decretal amount or making it payable by instalments. Sub-rule (1) coffers power on the Court to make such an order at the time of the passing of the decree if there is sufficient reason to do so. But the amount decreed would not include future interest from the date of the decree. What then is to happen in regard to such decree? Sub-rule (1) makes provision in this behalf also and says that the Court may order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made payable by instalments, "with or without interest". The provision in regard to interest from the date of the decree in a case where payment of the decretal amount is postponed or the decretal amount is made payable by instalments is thus made in sub-rule (1) itself and that sub-rule confers discretionary power on the court either to refuse interest altogether or to award interest without any limitation as to rate of interest. So also is the case in sub- rule (2). Sub-rule (2) confers power on the Court to make an order postponing payment of the decretal amount or making the decretal amount payable by instalments after the passing of the decree. Such an order can be made by the Court on the application of the judgment-debtor only if the decree-holder consents and in such a case the Court can lay down such terms as to payment of interest as it thinks fit. Here again we find that provision in regard to interest from the date of the order is made in sub-rule (2) itself and full and absolute discretion is conferred on the Court in the matter of award of interest. It will thus be seen that each of the two sub-rules or Order 20 Rule 11 enacts a self-contained provision conferring power on the Court to postpone payment of the decretal amount or to make it payable by instalments and providing for award of interest from the date of the decree or order, as the case may be. There is, therefore, no scope or need to resort to Section 34 so far as the award of interest from the date of the decree upto the date of payment is concerned and the limitation as to rate of interest specified in Section 34 cannot be invoked where the Court is acting under Order 20 Rule 11 sub-rule (1) or (2)."
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani And Ors vs Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani on 5 November, 2003

"In the instant case the suit was filed on April 20, 1972. The amendment of Section 34 referred to above, therefore, clearly is not applicable. The Court is required to allow proper rate of interest under the unamended Section 34. As we have seen earlier Section 34 has two parts, first part covering the period from the date of suit till the date of decree and second covering the period from the date of decree till the date of payment. We are concerned only with the second part. The trial court has awarded interest more than 6 per cent under the unamended provisions for the period from the date of decree till payments. The High Court appears to have not noticed the non-applicability of the amendment to suits filed prior to the amendment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 58 - A Kumar - Full Document

Syndicate Bank vs M. Venkatesu on 16 August, 2002

12. The next question which was argued with all vehemence is that because of granting of 6% interest subsequent to the institution of the suit the defaulters are taking undue advantage whereas the bona fide borrowers who are making payments are not getting the same advantage. Sri K.G. Shastry, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-bank with all seriousness had strenuously contended that if the amended provision of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not given due effect by making clear that this advantage is not available to the defaulters who intend to take advantage having borrowed the amounts from the Banking Institutions, it will amount to doing injustice in the case of bona fide borrowers who make repayments to the banking institutions with all promptness. Strong reliance was placed on M/s. Shree Bharat Laxmi Wool Store's case (supra) where failure to take notice of the non-applicability of the amendment to the suits filed prior to the amendment of Section 34, Code of Civil Procedure had been pointed out.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Ram Kumar And Anr. on 4 July, 1997

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has merit. Trial Court passed a decree for the recovery of Rs. 79,108.90 paise with interest at the rate of 12-1/2% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 25.11.1985 till the date of decree and future interest at the same rate from the date of decree till realisation of the decretal amount. It is not in dispute that the decree has attained finality. Plaintiff-appellant took out execution wherein an objection was raised by the judgment debtors to the effect that despite the decree, granting interest at the rate of 12-1/2% per annum the executing court could reduce the rate of interest to 6%. The executing court accepted the objection and reduced the rate of interest as noticed above. This in my view was not open to the executing court to do in view of a judicial pronouncement in M/s Shree Bharat Laxmi Wool Store and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank and Anr., (1982)84 P.L.R. 472. this view is further supported by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, wherein Under Section 34 it is provided that in case of commervial transactions, the contractual rate of interest should be allowed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1