Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 4139 Del
Judgement Date : 25 August, 2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.344/2002
% 25th August, 2011
SHRI JEEVAN KUMAR ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate.
VERSUS
CITI BANK, N.A. & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. A. Chakraborty, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 CPC is to the impugned judgment dated 19.2.2002, which
while recording payment to the appellant of the principal amount claimed
of Rs.3,22,900/-, however, declined the interest to the appellant/plaintiff.
2. Admittedly there is no contract between the parties for
payment of interest and the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove the
RFA No.344/02 Page 1 of 2
issuance of notice under Interest Act, 1978 entitling it to any interest.
This aspect has been dealt with by the Trial Court in para 11 of the
judgment. I agree with the conclusion of the trial Court that the appellant
was entitled to payment of interest either if there was any contract
between the parties, or the appellant had issued notice under the
Interest Act, 1978 and both of which aspects the appellant failed to prove
and therefore interest had been denied.
3. I therefore do not find any error in the impugned judgment
declining interest to the appellant/plaintiff. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial Court record
be sent back.
AUGUST 25, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!