Civil Court Had Jurisdiction, Bank’s Penal Interest Claim Unsubstantiated”: Punjab and Haryana High Court in Loan Dispute

Share:
bail summon 90 LanBail d Technical Acquittal Penalty Bail Case Transfer Citizen 80 Fines Seals Fertilizer Bail CBI Power Period Services death Law Bail Mortgage Mobile Suicide Minor protection constable Land State Girl documents seniority Claim Life Fees Rice TerminationSuicide Driving Education Family Merit Bank NDPS Costs Examination claim Teacher Regular Acquittal itbp319 job Summon payment law Property bpcl Legal payment 200 Child Abuse land Already pspcl journalist fir v summoning society cheque land officer marriage cheque prima bail act

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court settled a long-standing dispute pertaining to a tractor loan repayment. The judgment, delivered on April 2, 2024, by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin in the case of Manager, The Uchana Primary Co-Op Agri. Dev. Bank Samiti vs. Jog Raj (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs, revolved around the jurisdiction of the civil court and the legality of the bank’s claim for penal interest.

Legal Point of Judgment:

The judgment focused on two primary legal issues: the jurisdiction of the civil court in such matters and the validity of the penal interest claimed by the bank.

Facts and Issues:

Jog Raj had taken a loan from the appellant bank for purchasing a tractor. After receiving a notice to repay Rs. 21,600, he paid Rs. 13,000, considering it full settlement based on bank statements showing a ‘nil’ balance. However, the bank issued another notice demanding Rs. 18,610 as penal interest. This led to a legal battle questioning the bank’s demand and the jurisdiction of the civil court in this matter.

Detailed Court Assessment:

Jurisdiction Issue: Justice Sarin noted, “Civil Court had jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.” The defendant-appellant did not contest evidence of jurisdiction at the Trial Court and did not press this issue at the First Appellate Court, thus affirming the Trial Court’s decision on jurisdiction. [Para 8]

Loan Waiver and Penal Interest: The court observed that the plaintiff-respondent’s payment of Rs. 13,000 was considered a full settlement, as reflected in the bank’s statements. The claim for penal interest by the defendant-appellant bank was not supported by valid documentation or evidence. [Para 9]

Decision: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, finding no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law arising from the case. The appeal and any pending applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2024

Manager, The Uchana Primary Co-Op Agri. Dev. Bank Samiti vs. Jog Raj (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs

Download Judgment

Share: