CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High 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