Bank Of India vs G.

Narathan on 9 January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.01.2009

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYAKARUPPIAH

A.S.No.37 of 1999 and

C.R.P.(NPD)No.2617 of 2008

A.S.No.37 of 1999

Bank of India

No.46, Cathedral Road,

Chennai, Rep. By its

Zonal Manager .... Appellant

V.

1.G.Narathan

2.G.Seshadri .... Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed against the Judgment and decree made in O.S.No.12225 of 1996 03.12.1997 on the file of
the VI Additional Judge, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Vasudevan

For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramu

C.R.P.(NPD)No.2617 of 2008

Bank of India, Represented by

Its Zonal Manger,

No.30, Errabalu Chetty Street,

Chennai 600 001. ... Petitioner

V.

1.G.Naradan

2.G.Seshadri ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vasudevan

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1727879/ 1
 Bank Of India vs G.Narathan on 9 January, 2009

For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramu

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and
order passed on 15.12.2004 in I.A.No.12944 of 2000 in O.S.No.12225 of 1996 on the file of the VI Additional
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. J U D G M E N T

A.S.No.37 of 1999

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the 6th Additional City Civil Judge in
O.S.No.12225 of 1996 dated 03.12.1997 preferred by the aggrieved defendant.

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein towards arrears of rent, the subsequent interest and
costs payable to the demised property let out to the appellant/defendant. The Lower Court after going through
the evidence adduced before it had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents as prayed for with costs.
CRP(NPD)2617 of 2008

This revision is filed by the defendant/revision petitioner against the order passed by the Lower Court in
ordering the amendment of the decree during the pendency of the appeal preferred before this Court in
A.S.No.37 of 1999. The Lower Court had considered that the omission to incorporate interest clause was
purely a typographical error and ordered amendment in consonance with the judgment passed by the said
Court. A.S.No.37 of 1999

The case of both parties before the Lower Court are briefly stated as follows:

a) Case of the plaintiffs

The case of the plaintiffs is that the officials of the defendant approached the plaintiffs and their parents in the
year 1979 and offered to take on rent the premises described in schedule and situated in Door No.3, 3/1, 3/2
and 3/3, Second Street, Balaji Nagar, Royapettah, Madras -14. The Assistant General Manager of the
defendant bank accepted the offer by his letter dated 17.09.1979 and agreed to take the schedule mentioned
premises on rent. Accordingly, the rent was fixed at 1 Rupee 10 Paise per Sq.Ft for the total carpet area of
12419 Sq.Ft., which comes to a sum of Rs.13,657.60. The offer of acceptance given by the defendant bank
officials was based on mutually accepted terms and conditions provided for increase in rent by 15% once in 5
years. From the year 1985, the plaintiffs were requesting the defendant bank to enhance the rent at 15% as
agreed to by the defendant bank by their letter dated 17.09.1979. Inspite of several letters and oral requests
made by the plaintiffs, the defendant bank neglected to pay the agreed rent. By a letter dated 12.10.1994, the
defendant Bank has acknowledged the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.3,30,000/-. Inspite of the defendant Bank
specifically admitting its liability to the extent of Rs.3,30,000/- the defendant Bank has not paid the same.
Hence, the suit. b)Written statement filed by the defendant

The suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from 1985 to 1992 is barred by limitation, since the
claim is made beyond the period of three years. The defendant is willing to pay a sum of Rs.3.30 lakhs being
the admitted arrears of rent subject to the condition. Regarding the balance amount of plaint claim
Rs.4,72,945.92, being the interest on arrears of rent, the defendant is stoutly resisting the same, since there is
no contract between the plaintiff and defendant for payment of interest as per the terms of offer and
acceptance. The claim of the plaintiff for payment of interest on the aforesaid sum at commercial rate from
April 1985 is misconceived. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. CRP(NPD)2617 of 2008

a) Case of the plaintiffs:

The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,10,173.67 together with future interest at 18% with
quarterly rests till date of realisation. By Judgment dated 03.12.97, the suit was decreed as prayed for. By
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1727879/ 2
 Bank Of India vs G.Narathan on 9 January, 2009

mistake the decree has been wrongly drafted by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.8,10,173.67
together with interest, from 16.12.94 by failing to mention the interest and has been directed to be paid under
the judgment. Hence, they filed the application to amend the decree. b) Counter affidavit of the defendant

The allegation that the decree has been wrongly drafted by failing to mention the interest at 18% with
quarterly rests from 16.12.94 is denied by the defendant. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the petition for
amendment of decree.

2. The Lower Court had considered the evidence adduced before it and had passed a Judgment and Decree in
favour of the plaintiffs with costs. Similarly, the application filed by the Decree holders/plaintiffs to amend
the decree in order to incorporate the interest clause was ordered by the Lower Court with the reason that the
omission to mention the interest in the decree was purely a typographical error and the decree should be
amended as mentioned in the application, since the decree should be in consonance with the Judgment.

3. Heard Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant and for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.Ramu,
learned counsel for the respondents in both appeal as well as civil revision petition.

4. On a careful perusal of the pleadings of both parties, the evidence adduced thereon, the Judgment and
Decree of the Lower Court, the allegations and contentions made by both parties in the application for
amendment of decree and the arguments advanced on either side, this Court is of the view that the following
points are to be decided for the purpose of disposing the appeal and the revision petition. 1) Whether the
plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for, especially when the defendant had paid a sum of
Rs.3,30,000/- during the pendency of the suit as per the directions of this Court?

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim interest at 18% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of
suit till the date of realisation?

3)Whether the amendment ordered by the Lower Court during the pendency of this appeal is not in
accordance with law?

4)To what relief the revision petitioner is entitled for in the revision petition?

5. For convenience sake, the rank of the parties in the suit before the Lower Court are being referred in this
judgment.

6. Point Nos.1 and 2: The respondent is the defendant bank who was the tenant under the plaintiffs and their
father and mother in respect of the demised premises situated in Door No.3, 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3, second Street,
Balaji Nagar, Royapettah, Madras -14 from 01.04.1980 onwards. The said premises was let out by the
plaintiffs' parents and the plaintiffs in pursuance of the offer made by the defendant bank to the plaintiffs and
their parents through its letter dated 17.09.1979, agreed to pay rent to the schedule demised premises. The
further case of the plaintiffs was that the offer made by the defendant bank was also accepted and in
accordance with the letter dated 17.09.1979 the demised premises were let out to the defendant bank for
housing a training centre to the Zonal residential staff. Accordingly, the rent was fixed at 1 Rupee 10 Paise per
Sq.Ft for the total carpet area of 12419 Sq.Ft., which comes to a sum of Rs.13,657.60. According to the said
agreement reached in between the parties based upon the letter dated 17.09.1979, the period of lease should
have been for 10 years and after the lapse of 5 years, the rent can be hiked to a maximum level of 15% at the
mutual consent of both parties. Accordingly, the defendant was regularly paying the rent payable to the
demised premises and after the lapse of 5 years, the plaintiffs were demanding for the hike of rent as per the
clause of enhancement made in the letter dated 17.09.1979 and thereafter the plaintiffs demanded for another
hike for the rent from 01.04.1990 onwards and the same was also kept pending for finalisation with the
defendant bank. The further admitted case in between the parties would be that the demand of the plaintiffs
for hike in the rent fixed in the year 1979 was acceded by the defendant bank at the maximum level of 15%
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1727879/ 3
 Bank Of India vs G.Narathan on 9 January, 2009

per annum and accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to 15% of the rent, namely, Rs.13,657.60 from
01.04.1985 onwards and thereafter another hike of rent of 15% on the rent payable on 31.03.1990 to be
payable from 01.04.1990 onwards. However, the defendant bank had put a rider that the actual enhanced rent
will be payable from February 1994 onwards and the arrears for the previous period towards enhancement
would be approved subject to the execution of restoration of lease deed, reimbursement of costs of borewell
and pipeline aggregating Rs.31,849/- and reactivating the corporation water supply to the premises, providing
water closet in all the toilets, replacement of doors and carrying out other repairs if any. Agreed to the said
agreement, the defendant bank was paying the enhanced rent from February 1994 onwards. The dispute is in
respect of the difference in the rent payable from 01.04.1985 to 31.03.1990 at the rate of Rs.1.27 per Sq.Ft
enhanced on mutual consent at 15% and the arrears of rent payable due to the enhancement of another 15%
from 01.04.1990 onwards at Rs.1.45 per Sq.Ft till January 1994. The difference of rent payable for the period
01.04.1985 to 31.03.1990 per month was Rs.2110.70 for a period of 60 months and the difference amount of
Rs.2234.90 for a period of 46 months. Therefore, the arrears accrued for this period was agreed to be paid by
the defendant bank on the plaintiffs execute the repairs and the borewell and other restoration of amenities as
detailed in the said letter dated 12.02.1994. The claim of the plaintiffs that they were already the owners of
first floor and second floor and their mother was given the ground floor and the father was given the third
floor and fourth floor and subsequently the parents have settled their respective properties to each of the
plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are presently the owners of ground floor and first floor and second, third and fourth
floors respectively was not disputed.

7. Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to withheld the said agreed enhanced
amount of rent payable to the plaintiffs in respect of the demised property on the pretext that the plaintiffs
have not complied with the conditions imposed by the defendant bank in their letter dated 12.02.1994. The
plaintiffs had examined the first plaintiff as P.W.1 and had produced Exs.A1 to A14. The defendant had
examined its Manager as D.W.1 and had produced Exs.B1 to B49 in support of their case. The original offer
letter which culminated into the lease in between the plaintiffs and the defendant bank was produced as
Ex.A1. The letters written by the plaintiffs for enhancement of rent as per Ex.A1 stipulation were produced by
the plaintiffs as Ex.A3 and A4. The consent given by the defendant bank for the enhancement of the rent for
the period commencing from 01.04.1985 to 31.03.1990 and 01.04.1990 onwards was produced as Ex.A6.

8. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid letters, it has been categorically found that the defendant bank had
agreed to enhance the rent from 01.04.1985 onwards at 15% and thereafter from 01.04.1990 onwards on the
existing rent payable on 31.03.1990 at 15%. Therefore, there is no dispute in paying the enhanced arrears of
rent payable for the period prior to Ex.A6. The conditions imposed by the defendant are several fold in order
to pay the arrears of rent. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to impose such conditions as per the original lease
entered into between them in accordance with Ex.A1. On a careful perusal of Ex.A1, we can see various
clauses fixing the lease amount and the mode of payment and the liability to pay property tax by the owner of
the premises, electricity and water charges to be paid by the defendant. So far as the sinking of borewell and
other repair works are concerned, there was no agreement reached in between the plaintiffs and the defendant
as per Ex.A1. However, we could see that the correspondence in between the plaintiffs and the defendant
would go to show that the plaintiffs had agreed to share 50% of the expenditure for sinking of borewell
incurred by the defendant bank and other repair works also agreed to be done and accordingly the plaintiffs
had paid the said amount to the defendant bank. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that he had paid the
50% amount payable towards the expenditure of sinking of borewell. It is neither agreed in between the
parties that water should be supplied by the landlords/plaintiffs to the defendant. Similarly the requisites of the
defendant bank for fixing aircondition units in the said premises and the payment of appropriate security
deposit for such connections have also been paid by the plaintiffs. The defendant had deposited a sum of
Rs.3,30,000/- during the pendency of the suit only upon the direction given by this Court and the said
payment was appropriated by the plaintiffs towards interest payable for the said amount. According to the
evidence of P.W.1, that the claim of the plaintiffs regarding the hike in the rent was accepted by the defendant
bank. He had also admitted that the contents of Ex.A11 are correct. He would also admit that the arrears of
rent payable by the defendant bank to the plaintiffs were not paid even after Ex.A11. Admittedly, the said
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1727879/ 4
 Bank Of India vs G.Narathan on 9 January, 2009

amount was paid by the defendant bank only after the direction given by this Court in C.M.P.No.7426 of
1994. Ex.A11 was sent by the plaintiffs to the defendant bank on 19.10.1994. Thereafter only the suit was
presented on 16.12.1994 by the defendant before this Court. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to city civil
court on pecuniary jurisdiction on 10.12.1997. Therefore, it is made clear that the agreed enhanced rent
payable from 01.04.1985 to 31.03.1990 and from 01.04.1990 to 31.01.1994 were not paid by the defendant
bank despite the plaintiffs have complied with the conditions as required by the defendant bank through
Ex.A6. The defendant bank being the tenant was under the obligation to pay the said arrears of enhanced rent
even without any conditions. However, it did not pay the said arrears of rent even after the letter written by the
plaintiffs through Ex.A11 stating that all the requirements of the defendant bank were complied with. The said
amount was neither deposited nor paid by the defendant bank even after filing of the suit. A sum of
Rs.3,30,000/- was paid by the defendant bank only upon the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, the said
amount paid by the defendant bank after the filing of the suit should have been appropriated only in the suit
claim and not towards the arrears of rent. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence adduced on both sides that
the defendant bank was liable to pay the arrears of enhanced rent payable from 01.04.1985 to 31.03.1990 and
from 01.04.1990 to 31.01.1994 as claimed in the plaint.

9. So far as the interest payable on the arrears of rent is concerned, the learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant would submit in his argument that the defendant bank was not liable to pay interest as
there was no agreement to pay interest on the arrears of rent. He would further submit in his argument that
when there was no agreement as to the payment of interest, no interest can be awarded in the absence of any
advantage gained against the interest of other party.

10. He has relied upon the judgment of apex Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 188 (Vithal Dass v. Rup Chand
and others) The relevant passage would run as follows:

6) ... A co-owner in possession of all the joint properties does not become a trustee by the mere fact of his
collection of the full amount of rent from the tenants. If the co-owner is to be clothed with the status of a
trustee it must be shown that he has gained some advantage in derogation of the other co-owners interested in
the property and that he gained such an advantage by availing himself of his position as co-owner. In the
present case, there is no allegation made by the plaintiffs that the defendant has gained any advantage in
derogation of the rights of the plaintiffs, nor is there any finding of the lower Courts that the defendant gained
any advantage by availing himself of his position as co-owner...

7. We have already given reasons for holding that the provisions of S.23(b) of the Trusts Act do not apply to
the present case and the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any interest on arrears of rent and the High Court
has fallen into an error in granting such interest.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit in his argument that the
plaintiffs were deprived of the said amount of arrears of rent and the defendant bank was having the advantage
with it from the date when it had agreed to pay the same and therefore, the defendant bank is liable to pay the
said arrears of rent payable to the plaintiffs as it had retained the said money to its advantage for disbursing
and utilising the money for commercial loans and received interest at 18% per annum on quarterly rests.
Therefore, he would contend that the defendant bank is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum on the arrears
of rent at Rs.3,30,885.20 and the accrued interest over the said amount on such rate of interest agreed to a sum
of Rs.4,72,945.92 and accordingly a sum of Rs.8,83,831.12 should have been ordered to be paid by the
defendant bank less the payment made for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- paid as per the direction of this Court.

12. He would draw the attention of the Court to the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 185
(Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (Dead) by LRs) to the
effect that the public sector undertakings like Life Insurance Corporation was directed to pay interest at 15%
per annum when the matured amount was withheld by it without paying to the policy holder. The relevant
passage would run as follows: "23. ... The High Court has relied on the fact that interest @ 15% p.a. is
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1727879/ 5
 Bank Of India vs G.Narathan on 9 January, 2009

reasonable, in the present case, particularly in view of the fact that the L.I.C. Itself charges interest at that rate.
It is sufficient for us to state that there is no material produced, in the present case, to suggest that award of
interest @ 15% p.a. is excessive to permit interference with the rate in this appeal particularly when the High
Court has come to the conclusion that this is the reasonable rate. "

13. He would also draw the attention of the Court in yet another decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR
2000 SC 2003 (Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India and another). The relevant portion would
run as follows: "10. We are therefore of the opinion that interest on equitable grounds can be awarded in
appropriate cases. In Sovintorg (India) Ltd's case [1999 AIR SCW 2878 : AIR 1999 SC 2963) the rate of 15
per cent per annum was considered adequate to serve the ends of justice. The Court was apparently influenced
by the fact that the claimant had to suffer winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act and the defendant
must be made to share part of the blame. However, in the cases before us, the parties have not tendered any
evidence enabling formation of opinion on the rate of interest which can be considered ideal to be adopted.
The rate of interest awarded in equity should neither be too high nor too low. In our opinion awarding interest
at the rate of 12 per cent per annum would be just and proper and meet the ends of justice in the cases under
consideration..."

14. Yet another decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 3411 (Aditya Mass Communications (P)
Ltd., v. A.P.S.R.T.C) was relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs to the same proposition of law.
The appropriate passage would run as follows: "8. The facts narrated hereinabove clearly shows the
respondent has retained the money belonging to the appellant without authority of law and has driven the
appellant to series of litigations, therefore, this fact itself should have been sufficient to refuse the request of
the respondent made before the High Court for reduction of rate of interest. The quantum of interest a Court
may allow in a given case is governed by the facts of the case and not by any precedent law unless, of course,
limited by a statue. If a Court comes to the conclusion on a given set of facts, a party has been wrongly denied
the use of its own money, it is the duty of the Court to see that the said party is appropriately compensated. In
the instant case, we are of the opinion that the respondent has deprived the appellant of its rightful use of the
money. Therefore, the interest awarded by the trial court to say the least was most reasonable...."

15. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and the learned
counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, we can see that reasonable interest could have been awarded even
though there was no agreement in between parties for the deprived money which was kept to the advantage of
the other person. So far as this case is concerned, the arrears of enhanced rent has to be paid by the defendant
bank from 01.04.1985 onwards and from 01.04.1990 onwards respectively. The consent to pay the said arrears
of rent was expressed by the defendant bank from 12.02.1994. The agreement entered into between the parties
in Ex.A1 was to the effect that the enhanced rent should have been agreed on mutual consent as per the
enhancement stipulation made therein. Therefore, the said agreement in between the plaintiffs and the
defendant for payment of enhanced rent should have been arrived at only under Ex.A6 dated 12.02.1994. We
have already seen the conditions imposed in the said letter are not warranted as per the original lease
agreement entered into between Ex.A1. However, the plaintiffs have complied with the said conditions prior
to the filing of the suit. Therefore, the interest payable on the enhanced arrears of rent should have been
calculated from 12.02.1994, the date of Ex.A6 on the said arrears of rent for an amount of Rs.3,30,000/-. So
far as the demand of interest is concerned, no doubt the entire arrears of rent payable as on 12.02.1994 was
kept with the defendant bank to its advantage. The bank was lending loans to various persons including
commercial institutions. The evidence of D.W.1 would go to show that they are claiming interest at 18.5% for
the loans. He also admits that an interest of 21.7% was claimed by the bank for over draft facilities and thus
interest rates were claimed on quarterly rests basis. The admission made by the defendant bank may be
applicable to the commercial transactions to which the defendant bank had advanced loans. Similarly the
defendant bank was also advancing loans to students and agriculturists to which rate of interest of loan is
somewhat lesser in ratio. Similarly the bank is paying interest to the Fixed Deposits invested with them
ranging from 9% to 10.5% or 11% per annum as the case may be. However, there is no evidence adduced on
either side to that effect for the payment of interest towards deposits. The dicta of aforesaid Judgments of the
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1727879/ 6
 Bank Of India vs G.Narathan on 9 January, 2009

Apex Court would go to show that if the amount has been retained by any person to his advantage, he is liable
to pay the said retained sum with interest, should have been borne in mind. The claim of quarterly rests is only
applicable to the loan transactions purely on the basis of terms and conditions of loan agreement. Therefore,
that cannot be applied here for calculating the suit claim. However, the defendant bank had withheld the
arrears of rent amount payable to the landlord/plaintiffs.

16. In these circumstances, it will meet the ends of justice as the defendant bank had thus improperly retained
the arrears of rent, which has to be paid with a simple interest at 18% per annum. It would be sufficient
towards the claim of interest made by the plaintiffs for the improper keeping of the said arrears of rent by the
defendant bank from the date of consent (i.e.) 12.02.1994. Accordingly when the interest is calculated at 18%
per annum on Rs.3,30,885.20, it comes to Rs.4,963/- for a month and it is Rs.50,292/- for 10 months and 4
days till the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit claim should be Rs.3,81,177/- However, the Lower
Court had accepted the entire calculation made by the plaintiffs for a sum at Rs.4,72,945.92 towards interest
which was calculated at quarterly basis. The plaintiffs are also entitled to 18% interest at Rs.3,30,885.20 till
the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- was paid before this Court and to pay the rest of the amount with the interest at
18% per annum. The Lower Court had not considered the payment of simple interest at 18% per annum and
had not fixed the date of commencement of the said date. The plaintiffs had also not filed any calculation of
interest to arrive at Rs.4,72,945.92 and the date of such commencement of interest. The plaint is bereft of
details in that regard. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to interfere in the finding of the Lower
Court as regards the interest. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to a suit claim of Rs.3,81,177/- with
subsequent interest at 18% per annum on Rs.3,30,885.20 till the date of realisation with proportionate costs
less the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- paid by the defendant after the suit on 16.12.1994. Accordingly, these points
are decided partly in favour of the defendant.

17. Point No.3: This revision has been filed by the petitioner/defendant bank against the order of the Lower
Court in ordering amendment of the decree. The decree did not contain the interest clause. However, the
Judgment would go to show that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for. The plaintiffs had
asked for decreeing the suit with interest at 18% per annum with quarterly rests on the suit claim. However,
the decree did not contain the said clause. The Lower Court had intervened and ordered amendment on the
application made by the plaintiffs even during the pendency of this appeal. The only contention raised by the
revision petitioner was that the stay has been granted by this Court in C.M.P.No.1053 of 1999 and therefore,
the Lower Court had no power to order amendment of the decree despite it was only a typographical error. On
a perusal of the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.1053 of 1999 dated 04.02.1999, a conditional stay
was passed which would run as follows: "Mr.K.Ramu, has taken notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard.
Petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner pays the respondents a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two
lakhs and forty thousand only) within six weeks from today failing which interim stay shall stand
automatically vacated. However stay is restricted only with regard to the execution of the decree. However it
is represented that the appellant will not prevent the respondent from proceeding the other further
proceedings."

18. In the said order, the execution of the decree alone was ordered to have been stayed. The other further
proceedings were not ordered to have been stayed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the authority of lower
Court in ordering amendment of the decree in consonance of the judgment passed by the Lower Court is not
without authority. The order passed by this Court on 04.02.1999 did not bar the Lower Court from proceeding
the other further proceedings. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Lower Court.
Therefore, CRP(NPD)No.2617 of 2008 is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

19. Point No.4: In view of the discussion and findings in Points 1 and 2, the appeal is partly allowed and the
judgment and decree of the lower court is modified to an extent that the suit is decreed for a sum of
Rs.3,87,177/- with subsequent interest at 18% per annum on Rs.3,30,885.20 with proportionate costs less the
amount of Rs.3,30,000/- paid by the defendant bank to the plaintiffs subsequent to the suit. There is no order
as to costs in the appeal. 09.01.2009
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1727879/ 7
 Bank Of India vs G.Narathan on 9 January, 2009

Index :Yes/No

Internet :Yes/No

svki

To

The VI Additional Judge, Chennai.

City Civil Court, Chennai.

V.PERIYAKARUPPIAH,J.

svki

PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT

in A.S.No.37 of 1999 and

C.R.P.(NPD)No.2617 of 2008

09.01.2009

PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT

MADE IN A.S.No.37 of 1999 and

C.R.P.(NPD)No.2617 of 2008

TO

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYAKARUPPIAH

Most Respectfully submitted

by

(S.Vasanthakumari)

P.A. To Honble Judges

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1727879/ 8