STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAMAN KUMAR GUPTA
LAWS(J&K)-1986-9-13
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on September 22,1986

STATE BANK OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
Raman Kumar Gupta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SHAH, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of this Court on Feb. 22, 1983 is Civil Original Suit No, 11 of 1982 (hereinafter called the impugned decree).
(2.) STATE Bank of India granted a medium term loan Rs. 77000/ -under the scheme "Loan to Transport Operators" to Respondent 1 & 2 for the purchase of Motor Bus No. JKP -2519 on May 13, 1980. The Respondents 1 and 2 agreed to repay the loan advanced with interest at the rate of 5/1/2% below the State Bank of India Advance rate with a minimum of 11% per annum. The payment was agreed to be made in monthly installments of Rs. 2, 200/ - plus interest each month. The first installment was payable on June 13, 1980. Respondents 3 and 4 stood as guarantors for respondents 1 and 2 and executed an agreement of guarantee. The liability of respondents 3 and 4 was joint and several with respondents 1 and 2. On failure of the respondents 1 and 2 to repay the loan by monthly installments, the appellant served a legal notice through their Advocate on April 5, 1982 to the respondents. On their failure to pay the demanded due amount, the appellant filed the suit for the recovery of Rs 1,04, 127. 20 paisa inclusive of interest payable till January 6, 1983. The respondent 1 and 2 admitting the grant of loan and the execution of the documents defended the suit with respect to rate of interest alleging it to be quite penal with a further plea, that the Vehicle No. JKP -2519 Bus during the span of two years met with accident thrice as a result of which it remained idle and the Bank -appellant with whom the Bus was hypothecated illegally got the renewal of the permit stopped by writing a letter to the Regional Transport Officer, Jammu, as a result of which the renewal of route permit of the respondents was stopped on account of which the repayment could not be made in time. At the same time submitting that the respondents never denied to make the payments by monthly installments and admitting the claim of the appellant submitted that they are ready to to pay forthwith Rs. 10,000/ - in the Court to the plaintiff to be adjusted against the outstanding and the balance to be paid in monthly installments of Rs. 2, 200/ - as agreed and that they are ready to pay pendente lite interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the full payment is made and further prayed that they may not be burdened with costs and that the appellant be directed, to issue No Objection Certificateâ„¢ in favor of the respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 3 and 4 should be exonerated from their liability, as the cost of the Vehicle hypothecated is Rs, 1, 20,000/ - inclusive of the -route permit. The suit was filed on 7 -1 -1983. On 18 -2 -1983 the suit was fixed before the Court for registration on the very day learned counsel for the respondents accepted notice and prayed for the filing of the written statement. The court granted one week time to the respondents to file the written statement, which was filed on February 22, 1983 and on the very day the learned Single Judge took up the case for disposal and on the basis of the admission of the defendants, the court finding the respondents the honest debtors as is mentioned in the impugned decree, who made the payment of Rs. 10, 000/ - to the counsel for the plaintiff in the court on that towards the part payment of the amount claimed agreed for the payment of the rest of the amount in monthly installments of Rs. 2, 200/ -. The learned Single Judge decreed the claim of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 94, 127.20 paisa with a further facility for the payment of decretal amount in monthly installments of Rs. 2, 200/ -, the first installment to commence from 1 -5 -1983 with a direction that the appellant shall write a letter to the Transport Authorities for the renewal of route permit of Bus No. JKP -2519 hypothecated Vehicle forthwith. The future interest awarded by the Court was at the rate of 6% per annum till it is fully realized by the appellant and left the parties to bear their own costs.
(3.) THE appellant feeling aggrieved against the payment of decretal amount by installment of Rs. 2, 200/ - per month and the awarding of future interest at the rate of 6% per annum filed this appeal against the said decree claiming that the interest from the date of the suit till the date of realization of the decretal amount be awarded by raising it to 18% per annum instead of 6% granted. The appellant has valued the appeal for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 1, 04, 127.20 paisa and have paid the Court Fee of Re. 1/ - only on the appeal. At the out set, an objection was raised by the Court asking the appellant to show how the present Letters Patent Appeal of the valuation of Rs. 1, 04, 127.20 paisa is entertain able on a Court Fee of Re. 1/ - only and under what provision of the Jammu and Kashmir Court Fee Act, the Court Fee of Re. 1/ - only has been paid. Positively against the passing of the decree for the sum of Rs. 94, 127.20 paisa, the appellant cannot have a grievance, but the main grievance projected in the appeal as well as the Court canvassed before the Court pertains to the payment of the decreetal amount by monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 2,200/ - and the difference of interest claimed in the appeal at the rate of 18% from the date of the institution of suit till the realization instead of 6% granted by the Court; whereas in the suit interest at the rate of 11% per annum was claimed. The question arises whether the appellant is not liable to pay Court Fee, if not on the valuation put for the purposes of jurisdiction at least valuing the appeal against the grant of payment by installments and the difference of interest claimed instead of the decreed rate. On this proposition, learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to give any definite answer and justify the payment of Court fee of Re. 1/ - only under any provision of the court Fees Act, although learned counsel for the appellant argued at length attacking the decree by the grant of installments on various grounds including therein the non -framing of the issues and lastly submitted in case the court finds that the Court Fee is deficient, time be granted to him to pay the court fee on the appeal, which may be determined by the Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.