| 191 | 191 |
< The High Court of Bombay (continued from page 5-54) >
had pledged the house and agreed to pay interest on amount borrowed @ 24% per annum. C sued A&B for the interest and principal. C demanded in the law suit that the house be auctioned so that he can get paid. The lower court decided in favor of C but did not award him the interest. In an appeal filed at the District Court, the judgment of lower court not awarding the interest was overruled and the Court awarded interest to C @ 6% per annum. An appeal was filed at the High Court against this decision.
Judgment of the Hon. High Court: – According to section 210 of Civil Law of Easement, the Lower Court had the right to disallow interest payment from the date of filing the law suit until the judgment date. However the Court of Appeal (High Court) awarded the interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant submitted that the Lower Court was supposed to award the interest @24% per annum as agreed in the Pledge Deed. There are quite a few precedents supporting that it is proper to charge interest @24% per annum. However, the High Court erred in not agreeing with the lower court. There is no basis for overruling the decision of the Lower Court and this court cannot find any such precedent. It is commonly understood that if there is a lawsuit filed for exercising the rights by a pledgee, he/she should be entitled to get back the court costs but there is no such law. As decided in the case of Desaji Lakhmaji versus Bhavanidas Narottamdas, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision taken by the High Court. So, the decision of the High Court is hereby confirmed. <... continues on page 5-56 >