Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sanwat Singh v. State Bank of India - RSA-4026-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1757 (17 March 2006)


Case No. : R.S.A.No.4026 of 2005

Date of Decision : March 10, 2006.

Sanwat Singh .... Appellant


State Bank of India .... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.K.S.Malik, Advocate

for Mr.R.D.Yadav, Advocate

for the appellant.

* * *


The defendant is in appeal. He has lost concurrently before the two courts below in a suit for recovery of Rs.3,13,686/-, filed by the plaintiff-bank. The plaintiff-bank claimed that an amount of Rs.1,99,800/- had been advanced by the bank to the plaintiff, for purchase of a tractor and Rs.40,000/- had been availed of by him as cash credit limit for agriculture purpose . In this manner, a total sum of Rs.2,39,800/- had been advanced.

The defendant had executed necessary documents, by way of hypothecation agreement. It was claimed by the plaintiff-bank that the amount in question was still payable and therefore, the suit was filed.

The defendant contested the suit. Taking of the loan by him from the bank was admitted. It was claimed by him that it was an agricultural loan and therefore, the interest claimed by the plaintiff-bank was excessive and not chargeable.

R.S.A.No.4026 of 2005 : 2 :

The learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,13,686/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

An appeal was filed by the plaintiff-bank with regard to rate of interest awarded by the learned trial court. The learned first appellate court examined the documentary evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the pendente lite interest was to be the contractual interest between the parties i.e 12% per annum for term loan and at the rate of 11.5% per annum for cash credit limit. A future interest, however, was allowed at the rate of 6% per annum.

With the aforesaid modification, the learned first appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the plaintiff-bank.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.


March 10, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.