Delhi High Court
Punjab & Sind Bank. vs Mohd. Tayyab & Ors. on 3 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 465/2007
% 3rd March, 2014
PUNJAB & SIND BANK. ......Appellants.
Through: Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv.
VERSUS
MOHD. TAYYAB & ORS. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. A.A.Qureshi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 17793/2007 (delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. CM
stands disposed of.
FAO 465/2007 & CM No. 17794/2007(stay)
1. This first appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC against the
judgment of the trial court dated 26.3.2007 holding that the courts at Delhi
FAO-465/2007 Page 1 of 4
will not have territorial jurisdiction because the mortgaged property with
respect to which relief was claimed in the suit is situated at Bijnor in U.P.
2. It could not be disputed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff that the
suit is essentially under Order 34 CPC because the plaint mentions the
details of the mortgaged property and relief is also claimed for sale of the
mortgaged property. Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff however states that
the suit be treated as a simple suit for recovery of money and prayer with
respect to mortgaged property be deleted therefrom and in which case courts
will have jurisdiction because loan is granted at Delhi and the defendants are
residing at Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants could not dispute that
defendants are residing in Delhi and that even the loan was granted at Delhi.
Once the suit is a simple suit for recovery of money, civil courts at Delhi
will have territorial jurisdiction.
4. It may be noted that the trial court has decided all issues in favour of
the appellant-plaintiff, except the issue of territorial jurisdiction and
therefore, I need not burden this judgment with the findings of the trial court
and I adopt the same for decreeing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff against
the defendants for a sum of Rs.4,84,060.
FAO-465/2007 Page 2 of 4
5. I note that the rate of interest which is prayed for in this case is
11.25% per annum with monthly rests. Supreme Court in a catena of
judgments has held that in view of the new economic scenario where rates of
interest have fallen, courts should not grant high rates of interest pendente
lite and future. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra
Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority
and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn
Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna
Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of
Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140
(SC).
6. Adopting the ratios of the aforesaid judgments, I exercise my powers
under Section 34 CPC to reduce the pendente lite and future interest as
stated below.
7. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of
Rs.4,84,060/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest at 9% per annum
simple. Plaintiff will be entitled to court fees paid in the suit as costs in
addition to the aforesaid amount. Decree sheet be drawn.
FAO-465/2007 Page 3 of 4
8. The appeal is allowed and disposed of to the extent as stated above.
9. Whatever amount the respondents/defendants have paid after filing of
the suit, the appellant-bank would have to give adjustment of the same in
order to determine the amount which would be net payable under the
judgment and decree passed today.
MARCH 03, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
