1966 (1) TMI 76 - SC - Indian Laws

Limit on Interest in Mortgage Decree Upheld under Punjab Relief Act

SMT. DAYAWATI AND ANOTHER Versus INDERJIT AND OTHERS

The Divisional Bench upheld the reduction of interest in a preliminary mortgage decree by applying the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, limiting ... - Issues:1. Reduction of interest in a preliminary mortgage decree by applying Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act.2. Applicability of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act to a pending appeal.3. Interpretation of the term 'pending suit' in the context of an appeal.4. Retrospective effect of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act.Detailed Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the reduction of interest in a preliminary mortgage decree. The High Court had reduced the interest by applying sections 5 and 6 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Act did not apply to the case as no such plea was taken earlier. The Divisional Bench upheld the reduction of interest based on the Act's provisions, which limited interest to 7 1/2% per annum. The appellant contended that the Act could not be invoked in an appeal after the suit had ended in a decree. However, the amended section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, which was made mandatory, allowed for the reopening of transactions if interest was deemed excessive. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to reduce the interest based on the Act's provisions.2. The main contention was whether the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act could be applied to a pending appeal. The appellant argued that the Act's retrospective effect was limited to suits pending on or instituted after the Act's commencement. However, the respondents contended that the word 'suit' included an appeal from the decision in the suit. The Court analyzed the retrospective nature of the Act and concluded that the appeal court must apply the Act's provisions similar to the trial court, as the word 'suit' encompassed an appeal from the suit.3. The interpretation of the term 'pending suit' in the context of an appeal was crucial. The Court discussed the difference between a suit and an appeal, highlighting that an appeal is a continuation of the cause and is intended to interfere in the cause by reviewing and correcting the proceedings. The Court determined that an appeal is part of the cause, especially in cases involving relief for excessive interest. The legislature intended to include appeals within the scope of a pending suit for the Act's application, ensuring consistency in applying the law throughout different stages of litigation.4. The Court addressed the retrospective effect of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, emphasizing that the Act's provisions could be applied to pending suits, including appeals. The Act's language and clear intention to provide relief for excessive interest in pending suits guided the Court's decision to uphold the reduction of interest in the preliminary mortgage decree. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision to apply the Act's provisions to the case.