Supreme Court of India
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus RAVINDRA AND ORS. on 7 May 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
v. RA VIND RA AND ORS.
MAY 7, 1996
B jK. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
S.34-Expression "the principal sum adjudged" occuning in-lnterpreta-C lion of-Matter referred to Constitution Bench.
Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gouda & Ors., [1994] 5 SCC 213 and Bank of Baroda v. Jagannath, C.A. No. 2785/87 decided on September 21, 1994, referred to.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2421 of 1993.
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.7.92 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 227/90.
WITH
E
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3954/94, 9082 and 9088/1995
AND
Civil Appeal Nos. 3964, 3967 of 1992.
F
M.K. Banerjee, AG. D.A. Dave and V.C. Mahajan, O.C. Mathur, Ms. Meera Mathur, U.S. Prasad, Janendra Lal, B.R. Narang, Deepak Dewan, Balraj Dewan, A Subba Rao, Ranjit Kumar, K.M.K. Nair, R.C. Verma, Ms. Nina Gupta, Neeraj Sharma, Ms. Kiran, Vineet Kr., R.K. Kapoor, P. G Varma, Anis Ahmed Khan, S.K. Srivastava and Ms. Sushma Manchanda for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Conrt was delivered :
After hearing learned Attorney General and amicus curaie S/Shri A H Subba Rao, Ranjit Kumar and K.M.K. Nair on (the interpretation of the provisions of Section 34, CPC on "the principal sum adjudged" the matter A is required to be considered by a Constitution Bench. The learned Attor-ney General has drawn our attention to the judgments of this Court in Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gouda & Ors., [1994] 5 SCC 213 and Bank of Baroda v. Jagannath, C.A. No. 2785/87 decided on September 21, J.994 wherein he sought to draw the deduction that the principal sum adjudged B and the principal sum mentioned later would be the same. He seeks to take support from the word "such" in support of his contention. Preceding Amendment Act 66 of 1956, the words were "aggregate sum so adjudged" and after Amendment, were substituted with the words "the principal sum adjudged", from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such "principal sum" for any period prior to c the institution of the suit (with further interest on such date as the court deems reasonable on the "principal sum"). The distinction, therefore, was not drawn to the attention of this Court in the aforesaid two judgments in particular later one. As a fact no argument in this behalf appears to have been canvassed. Interpretation of the liability of the borrower to pay D interest on the principal sum to include interest that became merged with the principal sum adjudged or principal sum as lent, is required to be authoritatively laid down by a Bench of five Judges.
B
c
The Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting the Constitution Bench.
E
R.P.