Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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.

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.

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

Latest Legal News