Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) No. 1118 OF 2011
Kerala Financial Corporation .. Petitioner
Versus
C. G. Narayanan .. Respondent
O R D E R
1. Petitioner - Kerala Financial Corporation (for short “Corporation”)
sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,65,000/- to the respondent and the order was
communicated to the respondent by the Sanctioning Letter No. C1/646/2245/75
dated 29.12.1975 (Annexure P/1).
Corporation submits as per Clause 31 of
the Sanctioning letter, the Corporation has a right to make enhancement of
rate of interest on loan from time to time.
According to the Corporation,
the respondent committed default in making regular payment of the loan
amount, consequently, the Corporation enhanced the rate of interest to
11.75% per annum.
Notice of enhancement of the rate of interest was also
issued and served on the respondent.
2. Aggrieved by the said notice, respondent filed a suit being O.S. No.
479 of 1995 before the Munsif Court at Trichur, for an order of declaration
that the respondent is liable to pay interest only at the rate of 5.5% per
annum.
Learned Munsif Court decreed the suit as prayed for.
Corporation,
aggrieved by the said judgment of the Munsif Court, preferred an appeal
being A.S. No.123 of 1991 before the District Court and the District Court
also dismissed the appeal.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation preferred a second appeal
being S.A. No. 869 of 1996 before the High Court, which was dismissed by
the High Court.
The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are
under challenge in this special leave petition.
4. We notice that the Courts below, including the High Court, placed
reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in P.J. Mathew v. Kerala
Financial Corporation (1989) 1 KLT 904, against the Corporation claiming
the enhanced rate of interest, over and above 5.5% per annum. Courts below
found that, on facts, the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of that
judgment.
Judgment of the Kerala High Court in P.J. Mathew (supra) was
challenged by the Corporation before this Court in SLP (C) No. 409/89.
That SLP was heard along with SLP No. 413/89 and was dismissed vide order
dated 10.07.1989.
5. Under such circumstances, we find no reason to entertain this
petition and the same stands dismissed.
……………………………..J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
………………………………J.
(Dipak Misra)
New Delhi,
December 4, 2012
