Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)

State Bank Of India, Corporate Office, ... vs Sh. Rajesh Kumar Verma Aged 43 Years S/O ... on 20 December, 2013

16.The plaintiff has also sought interest at the rate of 13% per annum on the loan amount from date of filing till its realization. It is pertinent to mention that the transaction entered into between the parties was a commercial transaction. It is well settled that in a commercial transaction by the public financial institutions the contractual rate of interest is the rule and any departure is a rare exception. Moreover, Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, is a bar to reopening by the court, the contractual rate of interest entered into between the commercial banks and its debtor, if the interest charged by the bank is consistent with the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is also to be noted that under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court in a money decree may award Digitally signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.02.09 TRIPATHY 16:45:16 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 09.02.2024 (Page 6 of 7) CS SCJ 206/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA V. RAJESH KUMAR interest exceeding six per cent, on a commercial transaction but not beyond the contractual rate. Hence, the contractual rate of interest i.e. 13% p.a. stands accordingly allowed.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Abdul Gaffar vs Delhi Development Authority on 24 November, 2000

12.The legal demand notice dated 23.11.2021 and 16.03.2022 sent to the defendant alongwith postal receipt Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 have also been proved by the plaintiff. The contents of the legal notice can be deemed to be admitted by the defendant. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled Abdul Gaffar v. DDA, 2001 RLR 249. In any case, since the defendant defaulted in appearance despite being fully aware of the pendency of the suit, it can be safely presumed that the defendant has no defence to offer.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 537 - V Sen - Full Document
1