RP No. 949 of 2009 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Nov 2009
- Bench
- P R RAMAN, P BHAVADASAN
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
K.B. KANNAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. (LATE) K.K. BALAN, RESIDING AT KELAMANGALATH HOUSE, SRM ROAD , COCHIN-18,
M/S KRISHNA OIL MILLS BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
KUNJUMANI, W/O. K.K. KRISHNAN, PARTNER, M/S KRISHNA OIL MILLS, BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, R/AT KELAMANGALATH HOUSE, SRM ROAD, COCHIN-`18,
SUMANGALA, W/O. K.K. BALAN, PARTNER, M/S KRISHNA OIL MILLS, BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, R/AT KELAMANGALATH HOUSE, SRM ROAD, COCHIN-18,
K.B. DHANAPALAN, S/O. K.K. BALAN, RESIDING AT KELAMANGALATH HOUSE, SRM ROAD, COCHIN-18. ADV. JESWIN P VARGHESE FOR R1 ADV. RAJESH MATHEW FOR R2 TO R5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, ALONG WITH RP NO. 950 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ RP No.949/09 in RFA No.324/08 & RP No.950/09 in RFA No.326/08 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 20th November 2009 Bhavadasan, J. Order These Review Petitions have been filed by the Catholic Syrian Bank, seeking review of the common Judgment of this Court in RFA Nos.324 & 326 of 2008 dated 19.08.2009.
2. It is seen that the respondents herein had availed of a loan from the Bank and had suffered decree. In the appeals filed by the respondents herein, they challenged only the rate of interest. Finding that the rate claimed @ 23% was against the principles laid down in the decision reported in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and Others (AIR 2001 SC 3095), the appeals were allowed to the extent that the appellants in the First Appeals will be liable to pay interest, only @12% from the date of decree, till the date of payment of the amounts, which have already been made. This Court also directed that if the appellants in the RFAs deposit a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) within three weeks, it will deemed that the decrees in both the suits will be deemed to have been satisfied. RP Nos.949 & 950/09 2
3. Now, the Bank has come forward with the Review Petitions, pointing out that the amount directed to be paid by the appellants should have been Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) each in both the appeals and the Judgment of this Court may be modified to that extent.
4. We are afraid, the claim made by the Bank is not correct. It was only after taking note of the loan amount disbursed to the appellants in the First Appeals and the amounts paid by them, that the Judgment and decree of the Court below was modified by this Court. What was intended was, if Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) was paid, the decrees in both the suits will be deemed to have been satisfied. There is no error, apparent on the face of the record, as claimed by the Bank. So, these Review Petitions are devoid of any merit and they are accordingly dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE RP Nos.949 & 950/09 3 RP Nos.949 & 950/09 4
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.