REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Appellant

V/S

ADVATH SAKRU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GIRWAR PRASAD V. GANESHLAL SARAOGI [REFERRED TO]
GARIKAPATI VEERAYA VS. N SUBBIAH CHOUDHRY [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQUENNESSA MOHAMMAD WAHEDULLA VS. LAL BAHADUR CHETRI SINCE DECEASED AND AFTER HIM HIS LEGAL REPRESEN TATIVES:MOHAMMAD ABDUL HANAID [REFERRED TO]
AMIREDDI RAJA GOPALA RAO VS. AMIREDDI SITHARAMAMMA [REFERRED TO]
DAYAWATI VS. INDERJIT [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF FIRESTONE TYRE RUBBER CO OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED DR GENERAL MANAGER LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED MANAGER LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED BOMBAY GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED VS. MANAGEMENT:SHEIKH ISMAIL MOHAMED:K P GANGHARE:MANIK VASUDEO [REFERRED TO]
AMARJIT KAUR SMT TEJ KAUR BANTA SINGH KARAM CHAND RANJIT SINGH CHHANGA SINGH BAKSHISH SINGH HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. PRITAM SINGH:AJAIB SINGH:BACHAN SINGH:PARTAP SINGH:NARINJAN SINGH:MAGHAR SINGH:HARBANS SINGH:MOHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU VS. MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. KOTA RAMABRAHMAM [REFERRED TO]
BAI DOSABAI MATHURDAS GOVINDDAS VS. MATHURDAS GOVINDDAS:BAI DOSABAI [REFERRED TO]
SADHU SINGH VS. DHARAM DEV [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMT NARAYAN GUTN VS. NTRANJAN MODAK [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. VIJAY TRANSPORT [REFERRED TO]
MITHILESH KUMARI VS. PREM BEHARI KHARE [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH SURJEET SINGH KEHAR SINGH NIRANJAN SINGH MEWA SINGH KESAR SINGH MOHINDER SINGH SADHU SINGH VS. RAM PAL SINGH:JAGIR SINGH:TARA SINGH:PRITAMKAUR:WARYAM SINGH:MOHINDER SINGH:PRITAM KAUR:SHER SINGH AND ANOHER [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL AND CREDIT CORPORATION INDIA LIMITED VS. RAJA INUGANTI VENKATA RAMA RAO BAHADUR GARU [REFERRED TO]
KONAKALLA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA DIED VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF BANK OF INDIA VS. DHANEKULA KOTESWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK ALAMURU VS. MUDDANA KRISHNA MURTHY [REFERRED TO]
MEDIKONDA SATYANARAYANA VS. ANDHRA BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA BANK LTD VS. NARASAMMA [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRANATH RAJ VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF MADURA LIMITED VS. MADDI VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. P SARANGAIAH [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VIJAYAWADA VS. KATAMANENI SURYANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
D.S.GOWDA V. CORPORATION BANK [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA PRASAD JADAWAL VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA BANK V. ART. TREND EXPORT [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE VS. C T GEORGE [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK TIRUVANNAMALAI VS. V A BALASUBRAMANIA GURUKAL [REFERRED TO]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. KAILASHCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeals Nos. 268 of 1985, 832 of 1987 and 378 of 1986 were heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Sivaraman Nair and D. J. Jagannadha Raju, JJ. In these appeals, Banking Companies are the appellants, while in A.S. No. 1778 of 1984 Union Bank of India is the first, respondent.

(2.) The main point that was debated before the Division Bench was regarding applicability of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to the transactions entered into between a Banking Company and its debtors.

(3.) On behalf of the Banking Companies, it was contended that after coming into force of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short 'Regulation Act, 19490, Courts are prohibited/debarred from reopening the transactions entered into between the Banking Company and its debtor invoking the provisions of Usurious Loans Act, 1918 (for short 'Act 10 of 1918') irrespective of the fact whether the transaction was entered into prior to the coming into force of Section 21-A of the Act. It is also contended that Section 21-A will be applicable to a suit filed prior to the coming into force' of the said provision and pending on the said date, as well as to a suit filed subsequent to the coming into force of Section 21-A of the Act. In other words, it was contended that irrespective of the fact that the transaction took place earlier to the coming into force of Section 21-A of the Act and whether the suit in respect of the said transaction is filed prior to the said date or not, the said provision will debar or prohibit the Court from reopening the transaction and scaling down the interest by applying the provisions of Act 10 of 1918.

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD AND Vs. ADVATH SAKRU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address