← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhREVP/160/2018dismissed

Corporation Bank Banking Companies v. Smt. Manimala Jha

2019-01-07Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVP No. 160 of 2018 • Corporation Bank Banking Companies Transfer Of Acquisition And Undertakings Act Of 1980, A Duly Constituted Corporation Having Its Head Office Mangalore, Karnataka State And Amongst Its Branches One Of Its Branch Is Situated At Branch Opp. Teen Darshan Mandir, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Through Its Branch Manager And Chief Officer Shri Raghavendra Rao, Aged- 46 Years, Son Of Shri Subha Rao, R/o M.I.G.-II, 6/2, Jawahar Nagar Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Wrongly Mentioned As District Raipur (CG) As Per Cause Title Of Order ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Smt. Manimala Jha W/o Shri Santosh Kumar Jha Aged About 29 Years R/o Qr. No. G-6, 1st Floor, Chouhan Town, Junwani, Bhilai, Tahsil And DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh

2. Santosh Kumar Jha S/o Shri Bilat Jha Aged About 39 Years R/o Qr. No. G-6, 1st Floor, Chouhan Town, Junwani, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri P.R.Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 07/01/2019 Heard.

This review petition was filed by the Bank seeking modification of the order passed by this Court only up to the extent of liability for interest in respect of the period beyond 21/04/2009 up to realisation. Later on, a modification application has also been filed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that even though the acknowledgment of liability is for a total sum of Rs.3,74,000/-, the interest was

calculated up to 21/04/2009, though letter was issued in 2012. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to payment of interest not from 24/03/2012 but from 21/04/2009. 3.

Submissions which are now advanced before this Court were not raised at the time of arguments before us. Otherwise also, we find that the liabilities which were acknowledged, was on the basis of letter (Ex.P/9). Therefore, we are not inclined to modify the judgment passed earlier. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Rajani Dubey) Judge Judge Deepti