Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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

Similar News