Pendente lite interest and compromise settlement guidelines limited recovery after full satisfaction of the decretal amount.

The Court held that the bank was not entitled to pendente lite interest after the decretal amount had already been fully satisfied by drafts and fixed deposit receipts, which the bank had acknowledged and adjusted. Applying discretion under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it noted that the account had become a non-performing asset before the relevant cut-off date and that the Reserve Bank of India compromise settlement guidelines for chronic non-performing assets covered the case. As the minimum recoverable amount under the scheme had been met, no further sum remained recoverable and the appeal lacked merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant bank was entitled to pendente lite interest on the suit amount after the entire decretal amount had been satisfied, and whether any further amount remained recoverable in view of the Reserve Bank of India compromise settlement guidelines.

Analysis: The entire suit amount had already been paid by the defendants through drafts and fixed deposit receipts, and the bank itself had acknowledged receipt and adjustment of the amounts. The only surviving claim was for pendente lite interest. In exercising discretion under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court noted that the account had been treated as a non-performing asset long before the relevant cut-off date and that the revised Reserve Bank of India guidelines for compromise settlement of chronic non-performing assets covered such cases. The Court further noted that the minimum recoverable amount under the scheme had already been satisfied, leaving no outstanding balance for recovery.

Conclusion: The appellant bank was not entitled to pendente lite interest, and no further amount remained recoverable. The appeal was without merit.

---