Loading...

Najuma Sali vs Vijaya Bank Limited Represented … on 7 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Najuma Sali vs Vijaya Bank Limited Represented … on 7 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO.No. 316 of 2008()


1. NAJUMA SALI, W/O.K.M.SALI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.M.SALI, S/O.LATE K.A.MOHAMMED,

                        Vs



1. VIJAYA BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.C.CHARLES

                For Respondent  :SMT.SALLY THOMAS CHACKO

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :07/08/2009

 O R D E R
                    P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                             F.A.O. No. 316 of 2008
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009.

                                       JUDGMENT

Raman, J,

This is an appeal against an order dismissing an

application for temporary prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain

the defendant from charging interest above 9% on the loan amount

under V-rent scheme till the final disposal of the suit.

2. The suit is one for declaration that the charging of

interest for the loan availed of by the plaintiff above 9% is illegal

and other consequential reliefs. Husband and wife are the

plaintiff. The first plaintiff is the owner in possession of 18.230

cents of land. He has constructed a multi-storied building having

8 stories in the said building by availing loan from Syndicate Bank.

Later the defendant Bank contacted the plaintiffs and offered to

give better loan facilities. Rs.90,00,000/- was applied for including

the take over of the loan availed from the Syndicate Bank. Loan

was sanctioned with 9% interest per annum to be repaid in

instalments. Thereafter documents were also created for securing

FAO. 316/2008. 2

the loan. The defendant again advanced mortgage loan to the plaintiffs

under V-rent scheme for construction of three more stories to the

existing construction. The agreed scheme also stipulate reduction of

interest to 9%. Rs.40,00,000/- is availed under this scheme with a

floating rate of 14.25% interest. It is not necessary to go into the

further details of the averments made in the suit or in the petition for

the limited purpose of disposing this case.

3. According to the Bank, they are entitled to charge

interest as claimed. The suit is still pending and therefore the only

question is based on the prima face case and also the balance of

convenience, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an ad interim

injunction as prayed for. The court below found that the transaction is a

commercial one and parties are bound by the terms of the contract.

Therefore, injunction cannot be granted restraining the defendant from

charging interest in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Ultimately, whether the plaintiffs will be entitled to the relief prayed

for will be decided in the suit and merely because interest is charged,

that may not prejudicially affect the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit.

FAO. 316/2008. 3

That being the situation, the court below rightly rejected the temporary

injunction application. This court also did not grant any stay at the

time of admitting the appeal. More than one year has elapsed after

filing this appeal. We have heard the parties and we find that the court

below has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly come

to the conclusion that this is not a fit case where temporary injunction

can be granted. We agree with that finding.

We find no merit in this appeal. The observations made in

the order impugned are only for the limited purpose of disposal of the

interim injunction application. Whether or not the defendant Bank is

entitled to charge interest being a disputed question, that will be

decided in the suit after raising an issue based on the evidence.

The appeal is dismissed subject to the above.

P.R. Raman,
Judge

P. Bhavadasan,
Judge

sb.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information