Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shri Jeevan Kumar vs Citi Bank, N.A. & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4139 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 4139 Del
Judgement Date : 25 August, 2011

Delhi High Court
Shri Jeevan Kumar vs Citi Bank, N.A. & Anr. on 25 August, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
*             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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter