K.C. Pradhan Vs. Arun Kumar Dutta

Decided On : Nov-20-2007

Court : Orissa

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K.C. Pradhan Vs. Arun Kumar Dutta Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 1 => 'the Civil Procedure Code',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 3 => 'the Civil Procedure Code',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 61(2)(a',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 80',
			(int) 6 => 'the Civil Procedure Code'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Exts',
			(int) 2 => 'Interest(1'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '11-8-1983',
			(int) 1 => '28-8-1983',
			(int) 2 => '116',
			(int) 3 => '25',
			(int) 4 => 'two',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '4',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => '28',
			(int) 9 => 'two',
			(int) 10 => '5',
			(int) 11 => '1 to 5',
			(int) 12 => '5',
			(int) 13 => 'three',
			(int) 14 => '6%.11',
			(int) 15 => 'two',
			(int) 16 => 'two',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '443',
			(int) 19 => '1',
			(int) 20 => '2',
			(int) 21 => '1/',
			(int) 22 => '3',
			(int) 23 => '4',
			(int) 24 => '10,000/-',
			(int) 25 => 'three'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Subordinate',
			(int) 1 => 'annum.10',
			(int) 2 => 'Orissa'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1982',
			(int) 1 => '8-10-1980',
			(int) 2 => '25-4-1979',
			(int) 3 => '1970',
			(int) 4 => '1973',
			(int) 5 => '2 months',
			(int) 6 => '8-10-1980'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Court',
			(int) 1 => 'Ext',
			(int) 2 => 'Ext',
			(int) 3 => 'Ext',
			(int) 4 => 'Court',
			(int) 5 => 'Court',
			(int) 6 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'the Bank Companies (Acquisition',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'Court',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'Court',
			(int) 26 => 'the Sale of Goods',
			(int) 27 => 'Court',
			(int) 28 => 'Ext',
			(int) 29 => 'Ext',
			(int) 30 => 'Court',
			(int) 31 => 'Court',
			(int) 32 => 'Court',
			(int) 33 => 'Court',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'the l-Court'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10-1-1982',
			(int) 1 => '10-1-1982'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W. 1',
			(int) 1 => 'P.W. 1'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'six per cent',
			(int) 1 => 'six per cent'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6%',
			(int) 1 => '6%'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'second',
			(int) 2 => 'third'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536947',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'K.C. Pradhan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.C. Pradhan Vs. Arun Kumar Dutta',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - Recovery - Interest - Appellant out of friendly relationship had given alleged amount to respondent and on demand respondent, agreed to pay said amount - Respondent has also issued two cheques to Appellant - Both cheques bounced as insufficient money -Thereafter, Appellant issued demand notice - As respondent did not pay amount as per demand notice, Appellant filed suit for recovery of said amount with pendente lite and future interest - Respondent was ex parte - Trial Court decreed suit in part as not allowed interest on alleged amount - Hence, present appeal - Held, there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, Appellant is not entitled to interest except where it is allowed by mercantile usage, but such usage must be pleaded and proved - Since there was no contract between parties, Appellant cannot be granted interest prior to date of institution of suit and interest is payable where right to it or authority for its allowance or payment is conferred by statute - On face of such evidence, this Court is not in position to find that Appellant's case can be covered by any of alternatives -There is no counter evidence on point by respondent also - Court below has rightly concluded that Appellant has given friendly loan and there is no term and condition regarding payment of interest - Hence, Appellant is not entitled to interest - Accordingly, appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  7. The core question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum adjudged 8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code is extracted herein below for better appreciation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State of Orissa and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-20',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sanju Panda, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sanju Panda, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He has challenged the order and decree dated 11-8-1983 and 28-8-1983 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore in Money Suit No. 116 of 1982 wherein the learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff without granting any interest on the principal amount. Hence, the present appeal is confined to the payment of interest part only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Though notice of this appeal was issued to and personally served on the respondent, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before dealing with the question raised, the facts involved in the present case leading to filing of the appeal are narrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appellant-plaintiff out of friendly re-, lationshtp had given Rs. 12,000/- to the defendant on 25-4-1979 and on demand the defendant, vide two letters, Ext. 1 dated 4-6-1980 and Ext. 2 dated 28-3-1980, agreed to pay the said amount. The defendant has also issued two cheques dated 8-10-1980 and 10-1-1982 to the plaintiff. Both the cheques bounced as defendant had no money in his bank account. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued the demand notice, Ext. 5. As the defendant did not pay the amount as per the demand notice, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for recovery of the said amount with pendente lite and future interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The defendant was set ex parte.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To prove his case, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W. 1 and exhibited documentary evidence vide Exts. 1 to 5 in support of his claim. The learned Court below on considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the statement on oath by the plaintiff in Court has held that on 25-4-1979 plaintiff has given the aforesaid amount to the defendant and the defendant has not returned the same. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant has agreed to pay the interest to the plaintiff on the aforesaid amount. Plaintiff is not entitled to any interest on the principal amount. On this finding it has decreed the suit in part.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the trial Court has accepted the plaintiffs case regarding the payment of money by the plaintiff to the defendant, the Court below should have granted interest as per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, this Court should interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and a direction may be issued to the defendant to pay interest on the principal amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The core question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum adjudged</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code is extracted herein below for better appreciation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">INTEREST</p><p style="text-align: justify;">34. Interest</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum, as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation I : In this sub-section, 'nationalized bank' means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Bank Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation II : For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit there for shall not lie.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The interest that may be awarded to a plaintiff in a suit for money may be divided into three heads, according to the period for which it is allowed, namely-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) interest accrued prior to the institution of the suit on the principal sum adjudged (as distinguished from the principal sum claimed);</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) additional interest on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, 'at such rate as the Court deems reasonable;'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) further interest on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of the payment or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit, at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. From the above it is clear that the award of interest can only be on the principal sum adjudged and not on the principal and interest as on the date of the decree. The Court has also no discretion to award interest beyond the rate of 6%. But the Court has still a discretion to award or not to award any interest and in awarding interest, to determine at what rate it should be awarded subject to maximum of 6%.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Interest upto the date of the suit is a matter of substantive law and the section does not refer to payment of interest under the first head. It applies only to the second and third heads. The right to interest prior to the suit is a substantive one whereas pendente lite, it is one of procedure within the discretion of the Court and interest antecedent to suit is not a matter of procedure. A brief note on the subject will not be out of place, the law on the subject may be considered under the following two heads;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(I) where there is a stipulation for the payment of interest at a fixed rate;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(II) where there is no stipulation at all for the payment of interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If there is a stipulation for the rate of interest, the Court must allow that rate upto the date of the suit, however, high it may be, subject to the two following exceptions;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) if the rate is penal, the Court may award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) even if the rate is not penal, the Court may reduce it if the interest is excessive and the transaction was substantially unfair.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. For the period prior to institution of the suit, contractual rate of interest is mandatory. The Court has no discretion in the matter. If there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, the plaintiff is not entitled to interest except in the following cases where it is allowed by mercantile usage, but such usage must be pleaded and proved. Since there was no contract between the parties, plaintiff cannot be granted interest prior to the date of institution of the suit and interest is payable where a right to it or an authority for its allowance or payment is conferred by statute. In the case of sale of goods even if there is no stipulation in the contract to pay interest, the vendor is entitled to interest from the date of payment of the price till the date of the suit under Section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant cited a decision reported in the case of Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 1973 (1) CWR 443. But the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case plaintiff had issued notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and in his evidence on oath in Court he had stated regarding the usual practice for payment of interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the present case, plaintiff has examined himself as P.W. 1 and he has stated that;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On 25-4-1979 the defendant took Rs. 12,000/- from me out of friendly relationship for investing in his contractory work. He had urged to repay the money within 2 months. On demand he replied as per Exts. 1 and 2. Exts. 1/a and 2/a are his signatures. On further demand on 8-10-1980 the Defendant gave a cheque vide Ext. 3. But it was dishonored as the defendant had no money in his account. Again on my further demand the Defendant gave another cheque Ext. 4 for Rs. 10,000/- on 10-1-1982. But that cheque was also dishonored as the Defendant had no money in his accounts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. On the face of such evidence, this Court is not in a position to find that the plaintiffs case can be covered by any of the three alternatives indicated above. There is no counter evidence on the point by the defendant also. The Court below has rightly concluded that plaintiff has given a friendly loan and there is no term and condition regarding the payment of interest. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to the interest. Since discretion is vested with the Court to fix the pendente lite interest and future interest and the Court below has rightly adjudged that the plaintiff is not entitled to any Interest, this Court confirms the said finding of the l-Court below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR2008Ori109',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Arun Kumar Dutta',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536947'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K.C. Pradhan Vs. Arun Kumar Dutta Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 1 => 'the Civil Procedure Code',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 3 => 'the Civil Procedure Code',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 61(2)(a',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 80',
		(int) 6 => 'the Civil Procedure Code'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Exts',
		(int) 2 => 'Interest(1'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '11-8-1983',
		(int) 1 => '28-8-1983',
		(int) 2 => '116',
		(int) 3 => '25',
		(int) 4 => 'two',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '4',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => '28',
		(int) 9 => 'two',
		(int) 10 => '5',
		(int) 11 => '1 to 5',
		(int) 12 => '5',
		(int) 13 => 'three',
		(int) 14 => '6%.11',
		(int) 15 => 'two',
		(int) 16 => 'two',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '443',
		(int) 19 => '1',
		(int) 20 => '2',
		(int) 21 => '1/',
		(int) 22 => '3',
		(int) 23 => '4',
		(int) 24 => '10,000/-',
		(int) 25 => 'three'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Subordinate',
		(int) 1 => 'annum.10',
		(int) 2 => 'Orissa'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1982',
		(int) 1 => '8-10-1980',
		(int) 2 => '25-4-1979',
		(int) 3 => '1970',
		(int) 4 => '1973',
		(int) 5 => '2 months',
		(int) 6 => '8-10-1980'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Court',
		(int) 1 => 'Ext',
		(int) 2 => 'Ext',
		(int) 3 => 'Ext',
		(int) 4 => 'Court',
		(int) 5 => 'Court',
		(int) 6 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'the Bank Companies (Acquisition',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'Court',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'Court',
		(int) 26 => 'the Sale of Goods',
		(int) 27 => 'Court',
		(int) 28 => 'Ext',
		(int) 29 => 'Ext',
		(int) 30 => 'Court',
		(int) 31 => 'Court',
		(int) 32 => 'Court',
		(int) 33 => 'Court',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'the l-Court'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10-1-1982',
		(int) 1 => '10-1-1982'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W. 1',
		(int) 1 => 'P.W. 1'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'six per cent',
		(int) 1 => 'six per cent'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6%',
		(int) 1 => '6%'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'second',
		(int) 2 => 'third'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536947',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'K.C. Pradhan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.C. Pradhan Vs. Arun Kumar Dutta',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - Recovery - Interest - Appellant out of friendly relationship had given alleged amount to respondent and on demand respondent, agreed to pay said amount - Respondent has also issued two cheques to Appellant - Both cheques bounced as insufficient money -Thereafter, Appellant issued demand notice - As respondent did not pay amount as per demand notice, Appellant filed suit for recovery of said amount with pendente lite and future interest - Respondent was ex parte - Trial Court decreed suit in part as not allowed interest on alleged amount - Hence, present appeal - Held, there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, Appellant is not entitled to interest except where it is allowed by mercantile usage, but such usage must be pleaded and proved - Since there was no contract between parties, Appellant cannot be granted interest prior to date of institution of suit and interest is payable where right to it or authority for its allowance or payment is conferred by statute - On face of such evidence, this Court is not in position to find that Appellant's case can be covered by any of alternatives -There is no counter evidence on point by respondent also - Court below has rightly concluded that Appellant has given friendly loan and there is no term and condition regarding payment of interest - Hence, Appellant is not entitled to interest - Accordingly, appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  7. The core question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum adjudged 8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code is extracted herein below for better appreciation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State of Orissa and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-20',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sanju Panda, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sanju Panda, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He has challenged the order and decree dated 11-8-1983 and 28-8-1983 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore in Money Suit No. 116 of 1982 wherein the learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff without granting any interest on the principal amount. Hence, the present appeal is confined to the payment of interest part only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Though notice of this appeal was issued to and personally served on the respondent, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before dealing with the question raised, the facts involved in the present case leading to filing of the appeal are narrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appellant-plaintiff out of friendly re-, lationshtp had given Rs. 12,000/- to the defendant on 25-4-1979 and on demand the defendant, vide two letters, Ext. 1 dated 4-6-1980 and Ext. 2 dated 28-3-1980, agreed to pay the said amount. The defendant has also issued two cheques dated 8-10-1980 and 10-1-1982 to the plaintiff. Both the cheques bounced as defendant had no money in his bank account. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued the demand notice, Ext. 5. As the defendant did not pay the amount as per the demand notice, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for recovery of the said amount with pendente lite and future interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The defendant was set ex parte.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To prove his case, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W. 1 and exhibited documentary evidence vide Exts. 1 to 5 in support of his claim. The learned Court below on considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the statement on oath by the plaintiff in Court has held that on 25-4-1979 plaintiff has given the aforesaid amount to the defendant and the defendant has not returned the same. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant has agreed to pay the interest to the plaintiff on the aforesaid amount. Plaintiff is not entitled to any interest on the principal amount. On this finding it has decreed the suit in part.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the trial Court has accepted the plaintiffs case regarding the payment of money by the plaintiff to the defendant, the Court below should have granted interest as per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, this Court should interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and a direction may be issued to the defendant to pay interest on the principal amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The core question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum adjudged</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code is extracted herein below for better appreciation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">INTEREST</p><p style="text-align: justify;">34. Interest</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum, as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation I : In this sub-section, 'nationalized bank' means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Bank Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation II : For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit there for shall not lie.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The interest that may be awarded to a plaintiff in a suit for money may be divided into three heads, according to the period for which it is allowed, namely-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) interest accrued prior to the institution of the suit on the principal sum adjudged (as distinguished from the principal sum claimed);</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) additional interest on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, 'at such rate as the Court deems reasonable;'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) further interest on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of the payment or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit, at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. From the above it is clear that the award of interest can only be on the principal sum adjudged and not on the principal and interest as on the date of the decree. The Court has also no discretion to award interest beyond the rate of 6%. But the Court has still a discretion to award or not to award any interest and in awarding interest, to determine at what rate it should be awarded subject to maximum of 6%.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Interest upto the date of the suit is a matter of substantive law and the section does not refer to payment of interest under the first head. It applies only to the second and third heads. The right to interest prior to the suit is a substantive one whereas pendente lite, it is one of procedure within the discretion of the Court and interest antecedent to suit is not a matter of procedure. A brief note on the subject will not be out of place, the law on the subject may be considered under the following two heads;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(I) where there is a stipulation for the payment of interest at a fixed rate;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(II) where there is no stipulation at all for the payment of interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If there is a stipulation for the rate of interest, the Court must allow that rate upto the date of the suit, however, high it may be, subject to the two following exceptions;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) if the rate is penal, the Court may award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) even if the rate is not penal, the Court may reduce it if the interest is excessive and the transaction was substantially unfair.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. For the period prior to institution of the suit, contractual rate of interest is mandatory. The Court has no discretion in the matter. If there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, the plaintiff is not entitled to interest except in the following cases where it is allowed by mercantile usage, but such usage must be pleaded and proved. Since there was no contract between the parties, plaintiff cannot be granted interest prior to the date of institution of the suit and interest is payable where a right to it or an authority for its allowance or payment is conferred by statute. In the case of sale of goods even if there is no stipulation in the contract to pay interest, the vendor is entitled to interest from the date of payment of the price till the date of the suit under Section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant cited a decision reported in the case of Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 1973 (1) CWR 443. But the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case plaintiff had issued notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and in his evidence on oath in Court he had stated regarding the usual practice for payment of interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the present case, plaintiff has examined himself as P.W. 1 and he has stated that;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On 25-4-1979 the defendant took Rs. 12,000/- from me out of friendly relationship for investing in his contractory work. He had urged to repay the money within 2 months. On demand he replied as per Exts. 1 and 2. Exts. 1/a and 2/a are his signatures. On further demand on 8-10-1980 the Defendant gave a cheque vide Ext. 3. But it was dishonored as the defendant had no money in his account. Again on my further demand the Defendant gave another cheque Ext. 4 for Rs. 10,000/- on 10-1-1982. But that cheque was also dishonored as the Defendant had no money in his accounts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. On the face of such evidence, this Court is not in a position to find that the plaintiffs case can be covered by any of the three alternatives indicated above. There is no counter evidence on the point by the defendant also. The Court below has rightly concluded that plaintiff has given a friendly loan and there is no term and condition regarding the payment of interest. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to the interest. Since discretion is vested with the Court to fix the pendente lite interest and future interest and the Court below has rightly adjudged that the plaintiff is not entitled to any Interest, this Court confirms the said finding of the l-Court below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR2008Ori109',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Arun Kumar Dutta',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536947'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K.C. Pradhan Vs. Arun Kumar Dutta Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 1 => 'the Civil Procedure Code',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 34',
			(int) 3 => 'the Civil Procedure Code',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 61(2)(a',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 80',
			(int) 6 => 'the Civil Procedure Code'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Exts',
			(int) 2 => 'Interest(1'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '11-8-1983',
			(int) 1 => '28-8-1983',
			(int) 2 => '116',
			(int) 3 => '25',
			(int) 4 => 'two',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '4',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => '28',
			(int) 9 => 'two',
			(int) 10 => '5',
			(int) 11 => '1 to 5',
			(int) 12 => '5',
			(int) 13 => 'three',
			(int) 14 => '6%.11',
			(int) 15 => 'two',
			(int) 16 => 'two',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '443',
			(int) 19 => '1',
			(int) 20 => '2',
			(int) 21 => '1/',
			(int) 22 => '3',
			(int) 23 => '4',
			(int) 24 => '10,000/-',
			(int) 25 => 'three'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Subordinate',
			(int) 1 => 'annum.10',
			(int) 2 => 'Orissa'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1982',
			(int) 1 => '8-10-1980',
			(int) 2 => '25-4-1979',
			(int) 3 => '1970',
			(int) 4 => '1973',
			(int) 5 => '2 months',
			(int) 6 => '8-10-1980'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Court',
			(int) 1 => 'Ext',
			(int) 2 => 'Ext',
			(int) 3 => 'Ext',
			(int) 4 => 'Court',
			(int) 5 => 'Court',
			(int) 6 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 7 => 'Court',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Court',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Court',
			(int) 15 => 'the Bank Companies (Acquisition',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'Court',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Court',
			(int) 25 => 'Court',
			(int) 26 => 'the Sale of Goods',
			(int) 27 => 'Court',
			(int) 28 => 'Ext',
			(int) 29 => 'Ext',
			(int) 30 => 'Court',
			(int) 31 => 'Court',
			(int) 32 => 'Court',
			(int) 33 => 'Court',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'the l-Court'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10-1-1982',
			(int) 1 => '10-1-1982'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W. 1',
			(int) 1 => 'P.W. 1'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'six per cent',
			(int) 1 => 'six per cent'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6%',
			(int) 1 => '6%'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'second',
			(int) 2 => 'third'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536947',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'K.C. Pradhan',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.C. Pradhan Vs. Arun Kumar Dutta',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - Recovery - Interest - Appellant out of friendly relationship had given alleged amount to respondent and on demand respondent, agreed to pay said amount - Respondent has also issued two cheques to Appellant - Both cheques bounced as insufficient money -Thereafter, Appellant issued demand notice - As respondent did not pay amount as per demand notice, Appellant filed suit for recovery of said amount with pendente lite and future interest - Respondent was ex parte - Trial Court decreed suit in part as not allowed interest on alleged amount - Hence, present appeal - Held, there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, Appellant is not entitled to interest except where it is allowed by mercantile usage, but such usage must be pleaded and proved - Since there was no contract between parties, Appellant cannot be granted interest prior to date of institution of suit and interest is payable where right to it or authority for its allowance or payment is conferred by statute - On face of such evidence, this Court is not in position to find that Appellant's case can be covered by any of alternatives -There is no counter evidence on point by respondent also - Court below has rightly concluded that Appellant has given friendly loan and there is no term and condition regarding payment of interest - Hence, Appellant is not entitled to interest - Accordingly, appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  7. The core question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum adjudged 8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code is extracted herein below for better appreciation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State of Orissa and Ors.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-11-20',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sanju Panda, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sanju Panda, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He has challenged the order and decree dated 11-8-1983 and 28-8-1983 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore in Money Suit No. 116 of 1982 wherein the learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff without granting any interest on the principal amount. Hence, the present appeal is confined to the payment of interest part only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Though notice of this appeal was issued to and personally served on the respondent, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before dealing with the question raised, the facts involved in the present case leading to filing of the appeal are narrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appellant-plaintiff out of friendly re-, lationshtp had given Rs. 12,000/- to the defendant on 25-4-1979 and on demand the defendant, vide two letters, Ext. 1 dated 4-6-1980 and Ext. 2 dated 28-3-1980, agreed to pay the said amount. The defendant has also issued two cheques dated 8-10-1980 and 10-1-1982 to the plaintiff. Both the cheques bounced as defendant had no money in his bank account. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued the demand notice, Ext. 5. As the defendant did not pay the amount as per the demand notice, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for recovery of the said amount with pendente lite and future interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The defendant was set ex parte.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To prove his case, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W. 1 and exhibited documentary evidence vide Exts. 1 to 5 in support of his claim. The learned Court below on considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the statement on oath by the plaintiff in Court has held that on 25-4-1979 plaintiff has given the aforesaid amount to the defendant and the defendant has not returned the same. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant has agreed to pay the interest to the plaintiff on the aforesaid amount. Plaintiff is not entitled to any interest on the principal amount. On this finding it has decreed the suit in part.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the trial Court has accepted the plaintiffs case regarding the payment of money by the plaintiff to the defendant, the Court below should have granted interest as per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, this Court should interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and a direction may be issued to the defendant to pay interest on the principal amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The core question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum adjudged</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code is extracted herein below for better appreciation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">INTEREST</p><p style="text-align: justify;">34. Interest</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum, as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation I : In this sub-section, 'nationalized bank' means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Bank Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation II : For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit there for shall not lie.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The interest that may be awarded to a plaintiff in a suit for money may be divided into three heads, according to the period for which it is allowed, namely-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) interest accrued prior to the institution of the suit on the principal sum adjudged (as distinguished from the principal sum claimed);</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) additional interest on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, 'at such rate as the Court deems reasonable;'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) further interest on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of the payment or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit, at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. From the above it is clear that the award of interest can only be on the principal sum adjudged and not on the principal and interest as on the date of the decree. The Court has also no discretion to award interest beyond the rate of 6%. But the Court has still a discretion to award or not to award any interest and in awarding interest, to determine at what rate it should be awarded subject to maximum of 6%.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Interest upto the date of the suit is a matter of substantive law and the section does not refer to payment of interest under the first head. It applies only to the second and third heads. The right to interest prior to the suit is a substantive one whereas pendente lite, it is one of procedure within the discretion of the Court and interest antecedent to suit is not a matter of procedure. A brief note on the subject will not be out of place, the law on the subject may be considered under the following two heads;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(I) where there is a stipulation for the payment of interest at a fixed rate;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(II) where there is no stipulation at all for the payment of interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If there is a stipulation for the rate of interest, the Court must allow that rate upto the date of the suit, however, high it may be, subject to the two following exceptions;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) if the rate is penal, the Court may award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) even if the rate is not penal, the Court may reduce it if the interest is excessive and the transaction was substantially unfair.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. For the period prior to institution of the suit, contractual rate of interest is mandatory. The Court has no discretion in the matter. If there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, the plaintiff is not entitled to interest except in the following cases where it is allowed by mercantile usage, but such usage must be pleaded and proved. Since there was no contract between the parties, plaintiff cannot be granted interest prior to the date of institution of the suit and interest is payable where a right to it or an authority for its allowance or payment is conferred by statute. In the case of sale of goods even if there is no stipulation in the contract to pay interest, the vendor is entitled to interest from the date of payment of the price till the date of the suit under Section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant cited a decision reported in the case of Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 1973 (1) CWR 443. But the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case plaintiff had issued notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and in his evidence on oath in Court he had stated regarding the usual practice for payment of interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the present case, plaintiff has examined himself as P.W. 1 and he has stated that;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On 25-4-1979 the defendant took Rs. 12,000/- from me out of friendly relationship for investing in his contractory work. He had urged to repay the money within 2 months. On demand he replied as per Exts. 1 and 2. Exts. 1/a and 2/a are his signatures. On further demand on 8-10-1980 the Defendant gave a cheque vide Ext. 3. But it was dishonored as the defendant had no money in his account. Again on my further demand the Defendant gave another cheque Ext. 4 for Rs. 10,000/- on 10-1-1982. But that cheque was also dishonored as the Defendant had no money in his accounts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. On the face of such evidence, this Court is not in a position to find that the plaintiffs case can be covered by any of the three alternatives indicated above. There is no counter evidence on the point by the defendant also. The Court below has rightly concluded that plaintiff has given a friendly loan and there is no term and condition regarding the payment of interest. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to the interest. Since discretion is vested with the Court to fix the pendente lite interest and future interest and the Court below has rightly adjudged that the plaintiff is not entitled to any Interest, this Court confirms the said finding of the l-Court below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR2008Ori109',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Arun Kumar Dutta',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536947'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K.C. Pradhan Vs. Arun Kumar Dutta Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 1 => 'the Civil Procedure Code',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 34',
		(int) 3 => 'the Civil Procedure Code',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 61(2)(a',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 80',
		(int) 6 => 'the Civil Procedure Code'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Exts',
		(int) 2 => 'Interest(1'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '11-8-1983',
		(int) 1 => '28-8-1983',
		(int) 2 => '116',
		(int) 3 => '25',
		(int) 4 => 'two',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '4',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => '28',
		(int) 9 => 'two',
		(int) 10 => '5',
		(int) 11 => '1 to 5',
		(int) 12 => '5',
		(int) 13 => 'three',
		(int) 14 => '6%.11',
		(int) 15 => 'two',
		(int) 16 => 'two',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '443',
		(int) 19 => '1',
		(int) 20 => '2',
		(int) 21 => '1/',
		(int) 22 => '3',
		(int) 23 => '4',
		(int) 24 => '10,000/-',
		(int) 25 => 'three'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Subordinate',
		(int) 1 => 'annum.10',
		(int) 2 => 'Orissa'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1982',
		(int) 1 => '8-10-1980',
		(int) 2 => '25-4-1979',
		(int) 3 => '1970',
		(int) 4 => '1973',
		(int) 5 => '2 months',
		(int) 6 => '8-10-1980'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Court',
		(int) 1 => 'Ext',
		(int) 2 => 'Ext',
		(int) 3 => 'Ext',
		(int) 4 => 'Court',
		(int) 5 => 'Court',
		(int) 6 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 7 => 'Court',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Court',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Court',
		(int) 15 => 'the Bank Companies (Acquisition',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'Court',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Court',
		(int) 25 => 'Court',
		(int) 26 => 'the Sale of Goods',
		(int) 27 => 'Court',
		(int) 28 => 'Ext',
		(int) 29 => 'Ext',
		(int) 30 => 'Court',
		(int) 31 => 'Court',
		(int) 32 => 'Court',
		(int) 33 => 'Court',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'the l-Court'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10-1-1982',
		(int) 1 => '10-1-1982'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W. 1',
		(int) 1 => 'P.W. 1'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'six per cent',
		(int) 1 => 'six per cent'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6%',
		(int) 1 => '6%'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'second',
		(int) 2 => 'third'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536947',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'K.C. Pradhan',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.C. Pradhan Vs. Arun Kumar Dutta',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - Recovery - Interest - Appellant out of friendly relationship had given alleged amount to respondent and on demand respondent, agreed to pay said amount - Respondent has also issued two cheques to Appellant - Both cheques bounced as insufficient money -Thereafter, Appellant issued demand notice - As respondent did not pay amount as per demand notice, Appellant filed suit for recovery of said amount with pendente lite and future interest - Respondent was ex parte - Trial Court decreed suit in part as not allowed interest on alleged amount - Hence, present appeal - Held, there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, Appellant is not entitled to interest except where it is allowed by mercantile usage, but such usage must be pleaded and proved - Since there was no contract between parties, Appellant cannot be granted interest prior to date of institution of suit and interest is payable where right to it or authority for its allowance or payment is conferred by statute - On face of such evidence, this Court is not in position to find that Appellant's case can be covered by any of alternatives -There is no counter evidence on point by respondent also - Court below has rightly concluded that Appellant has given friendly loan and there is no term and condition regarding payment of interest - Hence, Appellant is not entitled to interest - Accordingly, appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  7. The core question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum adjudged 8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code is extracted herein below for better appreciation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State of Orissa and Ors.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-11-20',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sanju Panda, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sanju Panda, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He has challenged the order and decree dated 11-8-1983 and 28-8-1983 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore in Money Suit No. 116 of 1982 wherein the learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff without granting any interest on the principal amount. Hence, the present appeal is confined to the payment of interest part only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Though notice of this appeal was issued to and personally served on the respondent, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Before dealing with the question raised, the facts involved in the present case leading to filing of the appeal are narrated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appellant-plaintiff out of friendly re-, lationshtp had given Rs. 12,000/- to the defendant on 25-4-1979 and on demand the defendant, vide two letters, Ext. 1 dated 4-6-1980 and Ext. 2 dated 28-3-1980, agreed to pay the said amount. The defendant has also issued two cheques dated 8-10-1980 and 10-1-1982 to the plaintiff. Both the cheques bounced as defendant had no money in his bank account. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued the demand notice, Ext. 5. As the defendant did not pay the amount as per the demand notice, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for recovery of the said amount with pendente lite and future interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The defendant was set ex parte.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. To prove his case, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W. 1 and exhibited documentary evidence vide Exts. 1 to 5 in support of his claim. The learned Court below on considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the statement on oath by the plaintiff in Court has held that on 25-4-1979 plaintiff has given the aforesaid amount to the defendant and the defendant has not returned the same. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant has agreed to pay the interest to the plaintiff on the aforesaid amount. Plaintiff is not entitled to any interest on the principal amount. On this finding it has decreed the suit in part.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the trial Court has accepted the plaintiffs case regarding the payment of money by the plaintiff to the defendant, the Court below should have granted interest as per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, this Court should interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and a direction may be issued to the defendant to pay interest on the principal amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The core question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum adjudged</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code is extracted herein below for better appreciation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">INTEREST</p><p style="text-align: justify;">34. Interest</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum, as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation I : In this sub-section, 'nationalized bank' means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Bank Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Explanation II : For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit there for shall not lie.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The interest that may be awarded to a plaintiff in a suit for money may be divided into three heads, according to the period for which it is allowed, namely-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) interest accrued prior to the institution of the suit on the principal sum adjudged (as distinguished from the principal sum claimed);</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) additional interest on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, 'at such rate as the Court deems reasonable;'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) further interest on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of the payment or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit, at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. From the above it is clear that the award of interest can only be on the principal sum adjudged and not on the principal and interest as on the date of the decree. The Court has also no discretion to award interest beyond the rate of 6%. But the Court has still a discretion to award or not to award any interest and in awarding interest, to determine at what rate it should be awarded subject to maximum of 6%.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Interest upto the date of the suit is a matter of substantive law and the section does not refer to payment of interest under the first head. It applies only to the second and third heads. The right to interest prior to the suit is a substantive one whereas pendente lite, it is one of procedure within the discretion of the Court and interest antecedent to suit is not a matter of procedure. A brief note on the subject will not be out of place, the law on the subject may be considered under the following two heads;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(I) where there is a stipulation for the payment of interest at a fixed rate;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(II) where there is no stipulation at all for the payment of interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">If there is a stipulation for the rate of interest, the Court must allow that rate upto the date of the suit, however, high it may be, subject to the two following exceptions;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) if the rate is penal, the Court may award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) even if the rate is not penal, the Court may reduce it if the interest is excessive and the transaction was substantially unfair.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. For the period prior to institution of the suit, contractual rate of interest is mandatory. The Court has no discretion in the matter. If there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, the plaintiff is not entitled to interest except in the following cases where it is allowed by mercantile usage, but such usage must be pleaded and proved. Since there was no contract between the parties, plaintiff cannot be granted interest prior to the date of institution of the suit and interest is payable where a right to it or an authority for its allowance or payment is conferred by statute. In the case of sale of goods even if there is no stipulation in the contract to pay interest, the vendor is entitled to interest from the date of payment of the price till the date of the suit under Section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant cited a decision reported in the case of Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 1973 (1) CWR 443. But the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in that case plaintiff had issued notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and in his evidence on oath in Court he had stated regarding the usual practice for payment of interest.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the present case, plaintiff has examined himself as P.W. 1 and he has stated that;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On 25-4-1979 the defendant took Rs. 12,000/- from me out of friendly relationship for investing in his contractory work. He had urged to repay the money within 2 months. On demand he replied as per Exts. 1 and 2. Exts. 1/a and 2/a are his signatures. On further demand on 8-10-1980 the Defendant gave a cheque vide Ext. 3. But it was dishonored as the defendant had no money in his account. Again on my further demand the Defendant gave another cheque Ext. 4 for Rs. 10,000/- on 10-1-1982. But that cheque was also dishonored as the Defendant had no money in his accounts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. On the face of such evidence, this Court is not in a position to find that the plaintiffs case can be covered by any of the three alternatives indicated above. There is no counter evidence on the point by the defendant also. The Court below has rightly concluded that plaintiff has given a friendly loan and there is no term and condition regarding the payment of interest. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to the interest. Since discretion is vested with the Court to fix the pendente lite interest and future interest and the Court below has rightly adjudged that the plaintiff is not entitled to any Interest, this Court confirms the said finding of the l-Court below.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR2008Ori109',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Arun Kumar Dutta',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536947'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 34, the Civil Procedure Code, Section 34, the Civil Procedure Code, Section 61(2)(a, Section 80, the Civil Procedure Code

PERSON: J.1, Exts, Interest(1

CARDINAL: 11-8-1983, 28-8-1983, 116, 25, two, 1, 4, 2, 28, two, 5, 1 to 5, 5, three, 6%.11, two, two, 1, 443, 1, 2, 1/, 3, 4, 10,000/-, three

GPE: Subordinate, annum.10, Orissa

DATE: 1982, 8-10-1980, 25-4-1979, 1970, 1973, 2 months, 8-10-1980

ORG: Court, Ext, Ext, Ext, Court, Court, Learned Counsel, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, the Bank Companies (Acquisition, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, the Sale of Goods, Court, Ext, Ext, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, the l-Court

TIME: 10-1-1982, 10-1-1982

PRODUCT: P.W. 1, P.W. 1

MONEY: six per cent, six per cent

PERCENT: 6%, 6%

ORDINAL: first, second, third

FAC: Pranakrushna Satpathy v. State