SCA/1858/1986 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1858 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= CHANDRAKANT KANTILAL SHAH - Petitioner(s) Versus THE SARVODAYA CO-OP BANK., & 5 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KG SHETH for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR JS BRAHMBHATT for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 25/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The short facts of the case appear to be that respondent Bank filed Lavad Suit No.1346/1980 against K.G.Medical Stores and others, including SCA/1858/1986 2/5 JUDGMENT the petitioner herein for recovery of the amount of Rs.69,578.67. It appears that the petitioner was joined as the partner of the firm. The Nominee vide order dated 26.4.1984 decreed the said suit by passing the award and awarded interest at the rate of 20% per annum and the cost is also awarded of Rs.515/-. The petitioner preferred appeal against the judgement and award of the Nominee being appeal No.130/1984 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.11.1985 dismissed the appeal and it is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 2. I have heard Mr.Jitendra G. Sheth with Mr.K.G.Sheth for the petitioner. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that the principal grievance is on the ground of awarding of penal interest at the rate of 3% by the learned Nominee and its confirmation thereof by the Tribunal. It appears that the petitioner has not submitted any written statement in the complaint and, therefore, the Tribunal has found that the award SCA/1858/1986 3/5 JUDGMENT passed by the Nominee cannot be said as illegal. It further appears from the award passed by the Nominee that the deposition of the officer was recorded and the documents for loan transactions were also exhibited including the promissory note. Based on the same, the Nominee has found that the contractual rent was 17% and 3% was the penal interest and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 20%. The Nominee has further recorded that no evidence is produced on behalf of the defendant and, therefore, the award has been passed. 4. The pertinent aspect is that as found by the Nominee, the interest is payable at the rate prevailing from time to time and the defendant is bound by the agreement. The Nominee has not considered the different rates of interest prevailing, nor has specifically referred to any particular clause/condition, but has awarded the interest on the basis of the contractual agreement. 5. No material is brought to the notice of this Court, showing that the contractual interest was SCA/1858/1986 4/5 JUDGMENT not payable. Further, no such document or material was produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal also. Under these circumstances, the finding recorded by the Nominee and its confirmation thereof by the Tribunal, while passing the award by the Nominee and its confirmation thereof by the Tribunal, cannot be said as an error apparent on the face of record or perverse to the record, which may call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the above, the petition fails and hence, the same is dismissed, with the clarification that the dismissal of the present petition would not operate as a bar to the petitioner to move the Bank for settlement of the amount as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, if permissible, nor would operate as a bar to get the relaxation of the interest, if otherwise permissible as per the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time to the Bank concerned. Subject to the aforesaid Rule discharged. No order as to SCA/1858/1986 5/5 JUDGMENT costs. 25.2.2008 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod