Canara Bank Vs. P.R.N. Upadhyayaa and Others
EmailAppeal: SLPs (C) No. 11807 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26-2-1997 in CN No. 124 of 1996 of the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad) with No. 23684 of 1997.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26-2-1997 in CN No. 124 of 1996 of the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad) with No. 23684 of 1997.
Petitioner: Canara Bank
Respondent: P.R.N. Upadhyayaa and Others
Apeal: SLPs (C) No. 11807 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26-2-1997 in CN No. 124 of 1996 of the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad) with No. 23684 of 1997.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26-2-1997 in CN No. 124 of 1996 of the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad) with No. 23684 of 1997.
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 15, 1998
Head Note:
INTEREST
Reserve Bank of India’s Letter DBOD NO DC.DC.42/e.168 (61) – 81 dated 1.4.1981 – Interest rate on advances to landlords of the banks- Second para of circular Dt 1.4.81 not brought to notice of the court in earlier decision (JT 1994 (3) SC 211) – Said para having bearing on issue. Matter directed to be placed before Hon’ble chief justice for appropriate orders.
Reserve Bank of India’s Letter DBOD NO DC.DC.42/e.168 (61) – 81 dated 1.4.1981 – Interest rate on advances to landlords of the banks- Second para of circular Dt 1.4.81 not brought to notice of the court in earlier decision (JT 1994 (3) SC 211) – Said para having bearing on issue. Matter directed to be placed before Hon’ble chief justice for appropriate orders.
Cases Reffered:
1. State Bank of Patiala v. Harbans Singh JT 1994 (3) SC 211 (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. It appears that attention of this Court when it decided the case of State Bank of Patiala v. Harbans Singh JT 1994 (3) SC 211 was not drawn to the second para of circular dated 1-4-1981, referred to in para 5 of the judgment. The learned counsel for the Banks state that the date of the circular is wrongly men-tioned therein as 18-4-1991, and the correct date of that circu-lar is 1-4-1981. In our opinion, the second para of that circular has a substantial bearing on the question involved and therefore, the decision requires reconsideration. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place papers of this case before the Hons. Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. The learned counsel appearing for the Canara Bank and the Reserve Bank request that the matter may be directed to be listed, as early as possible as a large number of awards have been passed by the Ombudsman and they are creating problems for the Reserve Bank and other banks.
Court Masters
1. It appears that attention of this Court when it decided the case of State Bank of Patiala v. Harbans Singh JT 1994 (3) SC 211 was not drawn to the second para of circular dated 1-4-1981, referred to in para 5 of the judgment. The learned counsel for the Banks state that the date of the circular is wrongly men-tioned therein as 18-4-1991, and the correct date of that circu-lar is 1-4-1981. In our opinion, the second para of that circular has a substantial bearing on the question involved and therefore, the decision requires reconsideration. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place papers of this case before the Hons. Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. The learned counsel appearing for the Canara Bank and the Reserve Bank request that the matter may be directed to be listed, as early as possible as a large number of awards have been passed by the Ombudsman and they are creating problems for the Reserve Bank and other banks.
Court Masters
