PULIKKOTTIL OIL MILLS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first appeal, A.S.286 of 2000, is against a decree passed in a suit, where the State Bank of India sued for money due under a commercial transaction secured by a mortgage. The suit was decreed with interest at 15.5% per annum. In this appeal, the only issue that persuades us to interfere to some extent is with regard to post decree interest. Otherwise, on facts, the transaction is admitted; the mortgage is found; the nature of the transaction is admitted. The plea of the defendants-appellants that their business venture sustained loss on account of non-support of the banker for increased capital did not find favour with the court below. In fact, the appellants had disputed the mortgage and filed a separate suit. That suit was also tried jointly and dismissed as per the common judgment. That decree has become final. Looking at the materials available, we do not find any ground to persuade ourselves to disagree with the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge.

(2.) ON the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, while the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in relying on Section 21(A) of the Banking Regulation Act on the question of interest, we see that no advertence was made to Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure and the impugned judgment does not reflect application of mind with regard to exercise of discretion under that provision. We see that the loan was a medium term loan and cash credit for a small scale business venture. In fact, seeing the written statement, no plea was raised on any ground that would bring the case under the ratio of the decision in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra [2002 (1) KLT 743 (SC)]. Be that as it may, under Section 34, the Court below could have considered modifying the post decree interest and tapering it down. We are inclined to think that the post decree interest should have been 6%.

(3.) PERUSING the records, we find that the appellants had the benefit of different interlocutory orders in A.S.No.286 of 2000 and in this F.A.O., No.185 of 2010, enabling the payment of amounts. But, no amount was paid at all.