9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaint has been signed and verified, and the suit filed by a duly authorised person? 2. Whether the plaintiff made any credit entries in the accounts of the defendant by mistake? 3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff bank the amounts covered by cheque No. 0146653 dated 4.6.1983 in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-? 4. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to charge any interest on the amount drawn by the defendant on account of mistake made by the plaintiff bank? 5. Relief. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the plaint has been signed and verified, and the suit filed by a duly authorised person? The defendant did not press this issue during arguments, and it was decided against the defendant. Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff made any credit entries in the accounts of the defendant by mistake? The defendant admitted that an excess payment of Rs. 1.00 lakh had been made to him by mistake. This issue was also decided against the defendant. Issue 3: Whether the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff bank the amounts covered by cheque No. 0146653 dated 4.6.1983 in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-? The defendant did not dispute his liability to repay the principal amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh. Therefore, this issue was decided against the defendant. Issue 4: Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to charge any interest on the amount drawn by the defendant on account of mistake made by the plaintiff bank? The main contention was whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to interest on the mistakenly credited amount. The plaintiff argued that interest should be charged at the rate applicable to overdraft facilities, initially 18% per annum and subsequently 17.5% per annum, as deposed by PW-1. The plaintiff also contended that interest is payable under the Interest Act and on equitable grounds, as the defendant had used the plaintiff's money. The court considered Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, which mandates that a person to whom money has been paid by mistake must repay it. The court also referred to Section 4(1) of the Interest Act, 1978, which states that interest is payable in all cases where it is payable by virtue of any enactment, rule of law, or usage having the force of law. The court held that interest could be awarded on equitable grounds, as the defendant had wrongfully retained and utilized the money for over 15 years. The court concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate applicable to overdraft facilities, which was 18% per annum from 4.6.1983 to 31.3.1985 and 17.5% per annum from 1.4.1985 till the filing of the suit on 24.10.1985, with quarterly rests. The plaintiff's claim for interest amounting to Rs. 51,839.64 was not disputed during arguments. Relief: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting the following reliefs: 1. Recovery of Rs. 1,51,319.61. 2. Pendente lite interest from the date of institution of the suit till the date of the decree at 17.5% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 99,479.97. 3. Future interest at the same rate of 17.5% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 99,479.97 till realization. 4. Costs of the suit. The court also ordered that the amounts of Rs. 99,480/- and Rs. 5,000/- paid by the defendant by means of two bank drafts on 22.5.1998 should be adjusted first towards the interest accrued under this decree.
|
