CANARA BANK Vs. MILAN MEDICALS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Canara Bank wherein a modification is sought in the final decree that has been passed by the trial court. The respondents have appeared pursuant to notice having been issued to them.

(2.) THE first contention raised by the appellant's learned advocate and about which there cannot be much dispute is that there is an error in the concluding part of the judgment as also in the operative part of the order. The principal amount borrowed in this case was Rs. 3,00,000 and admittedly, the respondents did not repay any amount to the bank. The suit was, therefore, filed, claiming an amount of Rs. 4,00,190.39 along with current and future interest. While decreeing the suit, the learned judge has awarded interest that is prescribed, and directed that the interest would be on the sum of Rs. 3,00,000, namely, the original principal and not the principal plus interest, namely, the amount claimed by the plaintiff when the suit was instituted. The appellant's learned advocate drew my attention to the relevant provision of law and to certain decisions in support of his contention that this was erroneous and that the learned trial judge ought to have held that the interest would run on the amount as set out in the plaint and not on original principal. The learned advocate, appearing on the behalf of the respondents, sought to dispute this position because he seriously assails the computation of interest and, therefore, he contended that interest should not be awarded on the higher amount. There is, however, no valid ground to uphold the objections and the decree will have to be corrected to the extent that the interest would be calculated on the amount of Rs. 4,00,190.39.

(3.) THE respondents' learned advocate has advanced certain submissions which I shall briefly deal with. In the first instance, he submits that the bank had allowed his client to avail of an overdraft facility which was valid until December, 1991, and that this came to be curtailed in the month of August that year. He, therefore, submits that this action on the part of the bank was responsible for putting the respondents into difficulties and, therefore, it was precluded from claiming the prescribed rate of interest. As far as this argument is concerned, I need to only observe that there is no cogent evidence before the court to support the submission that it was the bank which was responsible for the condition pleaded by the respondents. To my mind, this is merely a cover up for the non -payment of the loan.