IN THE I-IIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. AT BANGAIQRE
DATED THIS mm mm my or APRIL 200%:
PRESENT
'HIE HON'BI.E mz.JUs'rIcE A "
THE Hoz~:*3LE
REVIEW m':f;'rx¢)Ar_;,_;_$r;;_(>;§_1k1%8%z2¢o6eV%
REVIEW PEfi:*i%N
REVIEW 1rr:*rz%r1g:2:%k:;b.I1«181g_9_Qg_ %
BE'I'WEEN: M 'V V' A' E
H.S.Visf1wa1j,aih
S/0.Subb€gowda'=. " V'
KM Road " V A
Mudigei%::.Ta1uk..V "
o
* Diétnet' ..Petitioner
_ ~ T _ Subramar1ya«R. for
" ._ [s,'2_£s}1Q'k' Harnahafli Associates, Adv.)
' H H K ~Th¢ Director
_ Disii. C0-operative Bank Ltd.,
" - Chickntiagalur.
T 2} 'The Joint Regstrar
Of C0~opem.tive Societies
Mysore Divisio
Mysore. M
3. The Sale Ofiicer
DCC Bank
Mudigere
Chickmagalur Dist.
4. M.D.Dinesh
S/9.M.S.DevegoWda
R/o.Mt.1ggur1.tvaIli
Bidarahalli Pest '
Mucligere taluk
Chickmagalur Dist. AV "
(By Sri B.K.Manjunath, R1 3
Sr}. L.Umakar1t:han,,---AGA for D.Nagaraj,
Adv. for R4) k %
REVIEW PETITIOIS' K°I1.~.j'..'3w8
Bmwmm
Chickmaga1uf~»Dié*;'fi7§¢t'V" M .
Co«operatiVé ' C~<;i;t::1"aI Lté. , " ' "
Rep. by its.Managin'g ..PetitioI1er
(fiy-s;~; 3_.i_;<.Manjunath, Adv.)
x 4.1.V '.3-i;«S ;V'i$IiW2i:hath
' ,. __S/ Q;
Mucligezfs 'l'ajiuk
LA Chiékmggaiur Dist.
% ff .:I3.§')inevé;h
' ,£g,i?9E.S.}Devcgowda
'- R/o.Mugguruva.lIi
__Bidaraha1li Post
Mudigere Taluk
Chickmagalur Dist. ..Respondents
\\/
These Review Petitions are fiieci under Order {€17
Rule 1 of CPC praying for review of the Judgment
Emma dated 12.11.2007 passed in WA 580/200?»
the file of the Honfiole High Court of Karnataka. '
RP 118/O8 ceming on for hearing 3 T
141/08, Gopala Gowda, J., made th::~fo11oW.i_ng:5 '< Q.
ORDER
Review Petition 118/G8 xfaxf
along with RP 141/08v by “‘fi§”st’ fésper;dent~
Bank. Review Petitien along with
effice objections}, V’ disposal
and is being ‘
2. 1 13/03 is seeking
13.11.2007 passed in WA
to review sur brdef ..
580/2007 A’>’;I1 e”‘ purchaser to deposit the
J i.’amo1mt with 9% interest upon the
the first respondexmfiank and
V furtheg to rmeive the remaining sale
‘ ¢<3nxsider.'a§j}:5n ameunt of 123.50 iakhs from the
VA in the Court sale Sri C.L.Puttaswa3:11y Gowda.
' V' 3. Heard Sri Subramanya, learneé counsel for the
fiefifioner, Sri B.K m, learned counsel far
respondents 1 85 3 and petitioner in RP 141/08 and also
Sr: Llimakanthan, learned AGA fer R12.
counsei Sri Dfiagaraj for R4 was not presesjii'
time of hearing of this petition.
4. Memo of calculation A’ ~.
petitioner staijng that he has at
the rate of 9% to t11ei~4.._.’};’3=_’ en the
amount of 1?s.1.V7f1O.{:)(}§,h/_{;VA “.’.”ee£iTiener/debtor
contends and
claimed was at 14°26: per
annum {it} the of Rs. 17 . 10 lakhs lean
amount by iix’ie»~}:§e_tifioner though he is entitled
_.. for ‘of inieree§__’pe3’abIe by him at 9% as per the
‘S€!3fiI6I}1€flt Scheme’ of the Government vide
its’ee1§i;:eer%d;::cde%e%1o.9.2oo7 the said benefit is not
extended i;he order under review. The memo of
e filed by the petitioner is not disputed by the
cotmsei for the first ;;”espondent- Bank.
‘ 5. The Statement of Objection is filed by
respendems 1 8; 3 to petifion Ne.118/G8 filed
5
by the petitioner] debtor. It is contended by the
respondents 1 & 3 counsel that the benefit of Onej’I’-fij1′:e”–.,_
Settlement Scheme as per Govtjetter dated ”
permitting the debtors who have ;_e A’
the Cooperative Societies] B8i1}€_$ the 1:_>e’n.efite.et’
at 9% payable en the ‘fietvnjavflefilable
to the petitioner as t11e;:–..’_’Cu~;:e “Sett1ee1ent scheme
was extended upte 313* tire petitioner
has net avaiggé prayed by the
learned to 3 that the
petitieneeis vvany-‘reduction in the rate of
interest peyetéle ox: amount as prayed by
him or1_%;thee.basie’tt1e §’.:}z1e Time Settlement Scheme of
“the to supra.
~. counsel for the petitioner requested
V this (3e’t1rt”~Vte’e§§tend the said benefit to him centerzding
‘ ‘ the’ petitioner is entitled for the same and in fact he
such request at the time of addressing
‘ “aréijmente on merits in the appeal, the same is net
deoneidered and geared and therefore, this review
petitien is filed. V
7. The aferesaid contentions urged by the leameit
counsel for the parties is examined by us to
whether the petitiener is entitied for the relief
in this review petitiem. The review fies-I j_
before this Court as on 31.3.2938. {rem ,’tE:ziev”fact,fl ” V’
the learned counsel for the had”
in the Writ appeai for to
oversight, We havepet regard to
the rate sf upon the
loan amount E1 the order
passed t ‘ ” on 12.11.2007.
Further, Bench of the Supreme
iloufi V1?-5843 L. the law regarding payment of
:At1″t:e’«..{)ebtor 8; Courts & the discretionary
of CPC in the case of Central Bank
tvof India Rcwtndra as Others reported in AIR
Sésiflat paragraph-41). The relevant portion
_V of_.vé’1*:iehA§.s extracted hereur:der:«
“A few points are clear from a
bare reading 01′ the provision. While
deereeing a suit if the decree be for
payment of money, the Court would
adjudge the p on the date
ef the suit. The Court may also be
called upon to adjudge interest due
and payable by the defendant to the
giiaintiff fer the pre–suit period which
interest weuid, on the findings arrived
at and noted by us herei11a.’mve.,~w.–_.ff .,
obviously be other thmi such ‘iiVn”i:eree;:t _l -V ]
as has already stood eapite1ised~-eeEndet,.’A ‘
having shed its character as ‘interest, . .
has acquired the colour of me
and having stood amalgamated intheae
principal sum would be adjudged eo.~._
The principal sumegljudged’ be
the sum aetualiy”. VleaI’zec:1i_»’;p1’u$ i:l1e
amount of interest on pei:iodiea._l”‘reete.
which aceeeriing — the eentfaet
between the”jee1’tie:s ex’ »tl1e’4Ve’st£ibIi$i£’ied
banking .p1’ecfi_ee efepitalieed.
Interest pendente é future
iI1tereet_ “poet-ggleeree not
exceeding E331”.C€1).t* emium) shall
be awarded’ oi;-. e’i1eI’1–e_pi*i1ieipa1 sum 1.6:.
the piineipal.Vemj1i.ad§udged on the date
of ti1e”e1:it..v It . is; sett;___I___e___c_§ met the
meet of the word’ ‘Hi-av.’ in See.34 confers
vjg_;c_1_i_§;§_;__z;c;”§_ie:1″‘e:1__j;l1e Court to award or
_ award interest or to award
‘ “iI1tereet”ei’:v such rate as it deeme fit.
v..S1ich”ititei’eet. so far as fE1l”.1;__I’€ interest
is concemaa mav commence f1’___o__q_i the
{iete___~of ._t-fie decree and may be made to
etov ‘lftlfifliflfi either with Qeymeret or
.. ‘T such earlier date as the Court
” V _tij3_.ings fit. Shortly hereinafter we
3}-t’opoee to gve an indication of the
: circumstances in which the Court may
i decline award of interest or may award
interest at a rate lesser than the
permissible rate. ”
(Emphasi by the Court)
8. That apart, S.3<§~{1) of CPC enabies the
inciudmg the Arbitrator and the Tribunal
lesser rate of interest than the ageed rate of = '
the parties 01'; the principal amoraif 'b@th for
during pendency of the
of the award till the '-the
by the creditor. 'A V'
9. In View of ‘One
Time Settiement i§’;: t:he1:.?’r1e’:’L’ benefit of
concessional debtors which
benefit and since the
proceedinzgisfihaire’ before this Court and
also in 3,-riew of décifiiaxfirf the Apex Court referred to
V3t1pra”,’L’–v{s%ei»*-feel’ ii; jusivéiiki proper to gant the above said
1:;e:”{S:;E’it’V directing him to pay the interest
at 9%’-«.031 .i’a1i:fiouI1t of Rs.I7,IO,G0{)/- for the peried
_8{)z.€>;§O()O to 15.1.2008 which works out to
1′? O/– the total amount payable hy the
‘::’_;:ct§%;§:oner/debtor to the fiI’St respondenbfiarxk Wouid be
X “1§s.27,96,17()/~.
\\x«/
10. According to the petitioner, as on 15.3.2008,
the petitioner and others have deposited 135.4 lakhs atgd
Court auction purchaser Mr.C.L.¥’uttaswa.m;§f 1 i
has deposited Rs.25 lakhs with
Bank, thus the tote} amount’ detjazreit made .
petitioner, others &
Mr. C. L.Puttaswamy is Aecertiing to
the meme of calculation ‘:V’§:x,§titiener, the
total amount te 27,96, 170/ –
by ca1cu}etiiigV.V.Vtii,e.;_: vat 9% upon the
amount payable to the
petitioner Bank.
f}IfheVv%_ortiei” passed in the Writ Appeal is seught
Vite’ ~ —by the petitioner regarding certain
aspects We had not yanted the “benefit
ef__Gever:1ifierit Order rgarding the reduction of rate of
i at 9% payable by the petitioner herein cm the
V’ amount due te the Bank for which he is legally
_4_:4ene’t1ed to. Therefoie, the prayer regarding rate of
interest payable by the petitioner to the Bank on the
principal loan ameeet claimed by it at 9% by applying
19
the above beneficial scheme, We must gent the reliefhto
the petitioner in this review petition by
order as indicated above. Accordingly the ~
petitioner in the review
gented. Further, We direct the aixctiorx pdxreilleser if
deposit Rs. 10 lakhs and irltereet; arA”9%’/o~
iakhs deposited by fourt11″ae ahvdverded. us
in favour of fourth the pubiic
auction purchaeegrlivaitlfigridd ‘the date of
receipt of to return the
said sale’ with iniierest as
ordered &t1:S’_ to The remaining sale
<;:or1si<:1ezfet:ior:1"-« e.s* sale amount shali be
"paid to theV"pe-fitioner. The first respondent Bank
'is to pay Rs. },()3,830/– which amount
is it petitioner. We further direct the
oetifioneryytdzo execute the sale deed in favour of the Court
purchaser Mr.C.L.PuttasWamy Gowda after
eomgolying with the directions given in this review order.
11
12. In the above said terms, Review Petition
118/08 is allowed directing the purchaser to deposit the
remairléng amount due to the Bank as indicated
13. Since We have allowed the review petitiéfi
by the petitioner in the abovesaidhi fév€3’I”‘II1S,,’_’ “t1′:ue:.1: u
petition filed by the Bank in RP 1q;1/gees
merit. Therefore, the same V
Accordingly, We reject the ‘ ‘t ‘ I V
K dge
ex/»