Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Ors  INSC
668 (7 May 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Faizan Uddin (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (5) 589 1996 SCALE (5)13
LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 3954/94, 9082 AND 9088/1995 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3964,
3967 OF 1992
O R D
hearing learned Attorney General and amicus curaie S/Shri A. Subba Rao, Ranjit
Kumar and K.M.K. Nair on (the interpretation of the provisions of Section 34,
CPC on "the principal sum adjudged" the matter is requited to be
considered by a Constitution Bench. The learned Attorney General has drawn our
attention to the judgments of this court in Corporation Bank vs. D.S. Gouda
& Ors. [(1994) SCC 213] and Bank of Baroda vs. Jagannath [C.A. No. 2785/87]
decided on September 21,1994 wherein he sought to draw the deduction that the
principal sum adjudged and the principal sum mentioned later would be the same.
He seeks to take support from the word "such" in support of his
Amendment Act 66 of 1956, the words were "aggregate sum so adjudged"
and after Amendment, were substituted with the words "the principal sum
adjudged", from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in
addition to any interest adjudged on such "Principal sum" fro any
period prior to the institution of the suit (with further interest on such date
as the court deems reasonable on the "Principal sum"). The
distinction, therefore, was not drawn to the attention of this court in the
aforesaid two judgments in particular later one. As a fact on argument in this
behalf appears to have been conversed. Interpretation of the liability of the
borrower to pay interest on the principal sum to include interest that became
merged with the principal sum adjudged or principal sum as lent, is required to
be authoritatively laid down by a Bench of five judges.
Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble Chief justice fro
constituting the Constitution Bench.
Pages: 1 2