SMT. DAYAWATI AND ANOTHER versus INDERJIT AND OTHERS

SMT. DAYAWATI AND ANOTHER versus INDERJIT AND OTHERS

The word 'suit' in section 6 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act includes an appeal from the judgment in the suit. Thus, the High Court was correct in reducing the interest in the mortgage decree under the Usurious Loans Act, as amended, even though only an appeal was pending after the commencement of the Act.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Dayawati and another; Respondent: Inderjit and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 January 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave From the Punjab High Court Judgment and Decree Dated October 15, 1959
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Usurious Loans, Interest Limitation, Retrospective Application of Statutes, Mortgage Actions
Civil Law Usurious Loans Interest Limitation Retrospective Application of Statutes Mortgage Actions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Dayawati and another

Appellant

Inderjit and others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave From the Punjab High Court Judgment and Decree Dated October 15, 1959

  1. 1 Whether the word 'suit' in section 6 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act includes an appeal, justifying reduction of interest in a pending appeal after the commencement of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The word 'suit' in section 6 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act includes an appeal from the judgment in the suit. Thus, the High Court was correct in reducing the interest in the mortgage decree under the Usurious Loans Act, as amended, even though only an appeal was pending after the commencement of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs