The Telegraph
Since 1st March, 1999
Email This Page
Street Legal

A cooperative bank purchased Kisan Vikas Patras (KVP) worth Rs 1.5 crore from a post office in 1998. When the bank claimed the amount (about Rs 3 crore) on maturity, the concerned postal authorities returned only the principal amount. They refused to grant the interest. The KVPs, they contended, were issued to the bank in contravention of the rules. The bank challenged the postal authorities in court. Quoting an earlier judgment, Gujarat High Court directed the authorities to pay the interest due. The earlier judgment had reasoned that if facts had not been suppressed or misrepresented, having once accepted the money, the authorities could not act in an arbitrary manner and withhold interest (Mahila Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd vs Chief Post Master and others).

A question of interest

In a case, the court passed a decree of payment. When the petitioner applied to the concerned court (with a copy of the order) for executing the degree, she appealed that interest be also charged because of the delay in payment. The court granted her wish but the accused challenged the order. Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that according to the Code of Civil Procedure the executing court couldnít go beyond the original decree and award interest. It held that if there was no mention of payment of interest in the original decree, then interest was not payable. If the petitioner felt that she was entitled to interest, she should file a fresh case (. Sreenivasulu vs P. Santhi).

An affair to remember

A woman left her marital home because her husband was having an affair. The man, meanwhile, filed a divorce case against his wife on grounds of desertion. The trial court did not grant the man divorce so he appealed to Rajasthan High Court. The high court upheld the trial courtís order, pointing out that there was enough proof that the man was having an illicit relationship, including a letter from his father to his father-in-law supporting his wifeís decision as well as a letter his mistress had written. The court held that the wife had a just cause for living separately from her husband. So, it could not be said that she had deserted him (Yashvant Kumar vs Kunta Bai).


Email This Page