M/S. NANDI INVESTMENTS AND ENTERPRISES versus L.M. SARAVAMANGALA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 24-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. NANDI INVESTMENTS AND ENTERPRISES 
v. 
L.M. SARA V AMANGALA 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Recovery suit-After a round of litigation Special Leave Petition 
permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach High Court-Non-
consideration of all the pleas by High Court in its order-On appeal, held: 
High Court ought to have considered all the pleas since the Special Le~e 
Petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach High Court-Hence, matter 
remitted to High Court for fresh decision-Constitution of India-Article 
136. 
Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against appellant-defendant firm 
A 
B 
c 
and its partners for recovery of a sum with interest. After a round of D 
litigation when the matter reached this Court by way of Special Leave 
Petition by the appellant, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file 
Review Petition before High Court. Appellant in its Review Petition 
took specific plea that interest on the principal amount was added twice, 
interest on interest was added and a sum paid towards income tax had 
E 
not been deducted. High Court though granted adjustment of the amount 
paid towards income tax, rejected the other two pleas observing that it 
could not go behind the decree. 
ln appeal to this Court appellant contended that High Court _ought . 
to have considered the specific contentions raised before it in vie~ of the F 
order passed by this Court permitting withdrawal of Special Leave 
Petition. 
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court 
for fresh decisi~n, the Court 
HELD : An adjustment of amount paid towards income tax was 
granted to the appellant-judgment debtor. But, when the assertion of 
the appellant-petitioner before the High Court was that interest on 
principal was added twice and that interest on interest was also added, 
G 
the High Court should have considered the fact and should not have H 
657 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
disposed of the Review Petition merely by observing that the Executing 
Court had passed the order and it could not go behind the decree. When 
the appellant withdrew the Special Leave Petition with a view to approach 
the High Court by filing Review Petition, the High Court ought to have 
recorded a finding whether or not the interest on principal was added 
B 
twice and whether interest on Interest was claimed by the plaintiff-
decree-holder. (661-D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6274 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.2003 of the Kamataka High 
C 
Court in R.P. No. 804/2002 in C.R.P. No. 4299 of 2001. 
N.L. Ganapathi for the Appellant. 
Ms. Minakshi Vij, for the Respondent. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
F 
G 
H 
THAKKER, J. : Leave granted. 
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed. by 
the High Court of Kamataka in Review Petition No. 804 of 2002 on 26th 
March, 2003 partly reviewing the order dated July 5, 2002 in C.R.P. No. 4299 
of 2001. 
The case has a chequered history. On September 14, 1987, the 
respondent herein filed a suit being O.S. No. 460 of 1987 in the Court of 
the Civil Judge at Mysore against the appellant-firm and its partners for 
recovery of a sum of Rs.2,20,000 with interest. On June 23, 1989, the Court 
of the Ilnd Additional Civil Judge, Mysore passed a judgment in the said suit 
based on admission. However, before the decree was drawn up, the parties 
to the said suit filed a Joint Memo praying that the judgment be confirmed 
only to the -Principal amount of Rs.2,20,000 and th~t other matters be left 
open for final adjudication. Accordingly on January 6, 1990, the Cou~ of 
IInd Additional Civil Judge, Mysore passed a partial decree for the priilciP,al · 
amount of Rs.2,20,000. The II Additional City Civil Judge, Mysore, after 
trial, passed a judgment on February 2, 1993 on the rest of the issues and 
NANDI INVESTMENTS AND ENTERPRISES 1·. L.M. SARA V AMANGALA [THAKKER, J.] 659 
a decree was accordingly drawn up. 
On October 5, 1993, the respondent herein filed Execution Case 
No.1514 of 1993 in the Court of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore against 
the appellant firm and its partners claiming even the suit amount with interest 
payable as on the date of the Execution Case to be Rs.4,22,269.5 ps. (i.e. Rs. 
2,20,000 towards principal and Rs.2,02,269.05 towards interest @ 12% p.a. 
from June 30, 1979 to September 14, 1987, after
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.