Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh vs Progressive Polyplast Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Supreme Court18 December 2002Shivaraj V.Patil · K.G. Balakrishnan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where interest has been capitalized and included in the principal amount claimed in a suit, that capitalized amount constitutes the "principal amount" for purposes of calculating future interest from the date of institution of the suit onwards, and the executing court cannot refuse to award such future interest on the ground that the decreed amount includes capitalized interest.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

JUDGMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is by the decree holder-Bank. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondents. The said suit was decreed to recover a sum of Rs. 10,54,7427- alongwith future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. to be calculated on the principal amount from the date of institution till realisation. The decree further directed that the principal amount shall be calculated after adjusting the amount received by the Bank during the pendency of the suit. Pursuance to the said decree, the appellant initiated execution proceedings. The Executing, Court took the view that the amount of Rs. 10,54,742/- can not be taken to be "the principal amount" for the purpose of calculation of future interest from the date of institution of the suit. In this view refused the award of interest of the decree amount of Rs. 10,54,742/-.

2. Aggrieved by the order of Executing Court, the appellant filed C.R. No. 608/1991before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the C.R. in limine at the stage of admission. Under these circumstances, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal. 3.The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and ors. (2001-3)129P.L.R. 837 (S,C.) to contend that principal sum adjudged would be the sum of actualloan plus the amount of interest on periodical rests which according to the contract between the parties or the establish banking practice, stood capitalised. He drew our attention of para 42 of the said judgment in which it is held that the interest once capitalisedceases to be interest and becomes a part of principal sum or capital. As is evident fromthe suit, the claim made by the appellants as on the date of filing the suit was Rs.

10,54,742/- which included the principal loan amount borrowed and interest accrued up to the filing of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents was not in a position to dispute this legal position. In this view of the matter, this appeal is entitled to succeed. The impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the Executing Court are set aside and we hold that, the appellant is entitled the interest on the principal amount of Rs. 10,54,742/-. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

R.M.S.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free