Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.27 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bank Of Baroda vs Jagannath Pigment & Chem. And Ors. on 21 September, 1994
This Court held in D.S. Gowda's case that the directions issued by the
Reserve Bank of India have statutory flavour. The Court noted that
agricultural finance stands on a different footing for the reason that
agriculturists do not have any regular source of income other than the sale
proceeds of their crops and therefore agricultural loans have to be treated
differently from other loans and borrowings. Reserve Bank of India has also
shown its concern towards agriculturist loances by devising separate policy
to govern them and not per-mitting capitalisation of accrued interest on
agricultural loans except on annual rests or when the loan/instalment has
become overdue.
Corporation Bank vs D.S. Godwa on 20 June, 1994
Though we have answered the question of law before us, but we cannot leave
the matter at that alone without sounding notes of caution, lest our view
of the law should be misconstrued and misapplied. Before we do so, it would
be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in Corporation Bank
v. D.S. Gowda (supra) in somewhat details.
Section 35A in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
Interest for the period anterior to institution of suit is not a matter of
procedure; interest pendente lite is not a matter of substantive law (See,
Secretary, Irri-gation Department, Government of Orissa & Ors. v. G.C. Roy,
[1992] 1 SCC 508, Pr. 44-iv). Pre-suit interest is referable to substantive
law and can be sub-divided into two sub-heads; (i) where there is a
stipulation for the payment of interest at a fixed rate; and (ii) where
there is no such stipulation. If there is a stipulation for the rate of
interst, the Court must allow that rate upto the date of the suit subject
to three exceptions; (i) any provision of law applicable to money lending
transactions, or usury laws or any other debt law governing the parties and
having an overriding effect on any stipulation for payment of interest
voluntarily entered into between the parties; (ii) if the rate is penal,
the Court must award at such rate as it deems reasonable; (iii) even if the
rate is not penal the Court may reduce it if the interest is excessive and
the transaction was substantially unfair. If there is no express
stipulation for payment of interest the plaintiff is not entitled to
interest except on proof of mercantile usage, statutory right to interest,
or an implied agreement. Interest from the date of suit to date of decree
is in the discretion of the Court. Interest from the date of the decree to
the date of payment or any other earlier date appointed by the Court is
again in the discretion of the Court - to award or not to award as also the
rate at which to award. These principles are well established and are not
disputed by learned counsel for the parties. We have stated the same only
by way of introduction to the main controversy before us which has a colour
little different and somewhat complex. The learned counsel appearing before
us are agreed that pre-suit interest is a matter of substantive law and a
voluntary stipulation entered into between the parties for payment of
interest would being the parties as also the Court excepting in any case
out of the three exceptions set out hereinbefore.
Union Bank Of India vs Dalpat Gaurishankar Upadyay on 2 April, 1992
Full
Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Union Bank of India v. Gaurishankar
Upadyay proceeds on the assumption that the 'principal sum'can never
include interest whatever be the agreement between the parties and this
hypothesis is itself incorrect as we have dealt with.
H.P. Krishna Reddy vs Canara Bank, Bangalore on 28 February, 1985
Their Lordships reversed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which was
under appeal and approved and affirmed view of the same High Court in H.P.
Krishna Reddy v. Canara Bank, AIR (1985) Karnataka 228, and Bank of India
v. Kamam Ranga Rao, AIR (1986) Karnataka 242. Universal banking practice of
usually charging interest on periodical rests and com-pounding interest on
remaining unpaid was specifically dealt with and approved. The principle
relevant consideration which prevailed with the Court were : continuing
judicial upholding of such practice over a length of time and the Reserve
Bank of India by issuing circulars/directives from time to time and on
paying 'adequate attention' having accorded its approval to permissibility
of such practice but intervening in the interest of streamlining the same.