RAJA OIL AND FLOUR MILL Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Suresh Kumar representing Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for appellant and Sri V.S.Valluru, learned counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) Sri Suresh Kumar learned counsel representing the appellant had pointed out to the substantial questions of law raised in grounds 15(a) and 15(b), on the strength of which the Second Appeal was admitted and would maintain that the terms and conditions relied upon by the appellate Court while modifying the decree and judgment of the trial Court and granting interest also relate to the cheques, orders and the like but not a case of this nature. The counsel also incidentally pointed out to the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and would maintain that inasmuch as the bona fide mistake was there both on the part of the Bank and also the customer, charging of interest in such a case definitely cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on certain observations made by the Apex Court in CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs. RAVINDRA, 1(2002) 1 SCC 367..

(3.) On the contrary Sri Valluru, learned counsel representing the respondent- Bank would contend that even if the terms and conditions as such may not govern in the light of the conduct of the parties, appellant had not chosen to re- deposit the amount immediately and had the advantage of utilizing the said amount and hence granting of interest on such amount, which had been utilized by the appellant, cannot be said to be either unjust or improper and even otherwise the discretion had been exercised properly by the appellate Court while awarding interest in the peculiar facts and circumstances and hence the said findings not to be disturbed.