IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION No. 6 of 2008 PETITION No. 6 of 2008 PETITION No. 6 of 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT No. 757 of 1990 No. 757 of 1990 No. 757 of 1990 M/s Plasto Pack & Anr ..Petitioners. Vs. Ratnakar Bank Ltd. ..Defendant. Mr G. Krishna Mohan Nair, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr Yashodhan Divekar i/b Divekar & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. V.C. DAGA,J. V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 17.06.2008. 17.06.2008. 17.06.2008. P.C.- P.C.- P.C.- ---- ---- ---- 1. The original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (the petitioners) in Review Petition have filed this review petition seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2008 passed by this Court in Suit No. 757 of 1990 contending that in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of applicants themselves, no future interest could have been awarded by this Court. 2. Percontra, learned counsel for the original plaintiff/respondent-bank has opposed review petition. 3. Having heard both parties, the entire controversy revolves around the order of the Apex Court between the parties to the Review Petition (M/s (M/s (M/s Plasto Pack & Anr vs. Ratnakar Bank Ltd, Plasto Pack & Anr vs. Ratnakar Bank Ltd, Plasto Pack & Anr vs. Ratnakar Bank Ltd, (2001) (2001) (2001) 6 S.C.C. 683). 6 S.C.C. 683). 6 S.C.C. 683). The relevant observations are reproduced below: 14."For the foregoing reasons the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 26-7-1999, the decree dated 3-3-1995 and the order dated 24-11-1997 are all set aside. The suit is restored onthe file of the High Court. It shall be taken up for hearing and decided afresh after affording the defendant-appellants an opportunity of contesting the suit on its merits. The amount of Rs. 7,61,000/- deposited by the appellants with the Registry of this Court shall be refunded to the appellants as the decree has been set aside and settlement has failed. Costs upto this stage shall be borne by the parties as incurred. Before parting, we expect the respondent Bank to take a sympathetic view of the appellants’ proposal and still try to reach a settlement. The High Court may also make an effort to settle the dispute by trying a conciliation. In any case, we make it clear that on the abovesaid amount of Rs. 7,61,000/- interest shall cease with effect from 31.7.2000 the date on which the respondent Bank had notice of the deposit and yet it unreasonably refused to accept the tender of such amount." 4. Having seen the text of the operative part of the judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that interest was to cease on Rs. 7,61,000/-, i.e. on suit claim with effect from 31.7.2000. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 24.1.1990. In the above view of the matter, the plaintiff would only be entitled for interest from the date of suit till 30.7.2000. 5. In the above circumstances, it has become necessary to review the judgment and order passed by this Court on 9.1.2008. Hence the order. 6. The operative part of the judgment and order dated 9.1.2008 stands deleted and substituted with that of the following: "(a) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 do pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.7,61,798.60 with interest thereon @ 12% per annum on the decretal amount i.e. suit claim calculated thereon from the date of suit till 30.7.2000 with costs. The suit stands decreed in terms of this order. Decree be drawn in terms of this order. (b) The Court Receiver is discharged without furnishing accounts." 7. Review Petition is disposed of in terms of this order. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.