SICOM LIMITED Vs. PRASHANT S TANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above summons for judgment appeared before the learned single Judge who, by a common order dated 22nd July, 2003, opining that they may be more advantageously heard by a larger bench, placed the matters under Rule 28 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side)Rules, before the Honble Chief Justice for making an appropriate order for constituting a Larger Bench. The Honble Chief Justice by an order dated 14th November, 2003 constituted a larger bench to which one of us (S. J. Vazifdar, J.) was a party. As the earlier Full Bench was unable to hear the matters, the present Bench was constituted to hear the reference.

(2.) THE earlier Full Bench on 25th November, 2003, framed, for convenience, the following four questions of law:

(3.) THE above suits were filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It appears from the said order of the learned single Judge that one of the contentions of the defendants in most of the matters was that there was no contract to pay interest and that the rate at which interest was claimed was excessive and not in accordance with the contract. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff therefore sought, orally to give up a part of the claim which was not within the contract. This application was sought to be supported on behalf of the plaintiff by relying upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ajcon Capital Markets Limited v. Maya rasayan Limited, (2003) 6 BCR 810. The application was objected to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants. The objection was founded on two Division Bench judgments of this Court in M/s. Randerian and Singh v. Indian Overseas Bank (Appeal No. 1060 of 1986 in Summons for Judgment No. 307 of 1986 in Summary Suit No. 3212 of 1985) decided on 24th february, 1987 and Hydraulic and General engineering v. UCO Bank, (1998) 1 LJ 793.