ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 9868/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30/10/2014 IN APO NO. 253/2014 IN CS NO. 266/2004 AND DATED 28/11/2014 IN GA NO. 3685/2014 IN APO NO. 253/2014 IN CS NO. 266/2004 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA)

VCK SHARE & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. (NOW ICICI BANK LTD.) RESPONDENT(S) (WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)

Date : 28/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kshatrshal R., Adv. for M/s. Parekh & Co., Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

[VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER

[TAPAN KR. CHAKRABORTY] COURT MASTER

[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11354 OF 2016 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9868/2015]

VCK SHARE & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

BANK OF RAJASTHAN (NOW ICICI BANK LTD.) ...RESPONDENT

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

3. The present appeal arises out of an order of the Calcutta High Court by which the High Court had directed that for the interim period i.e. 2004 to 2014 (relevance of the said dates are being noticed hereinafter) there will be no interest awardable if the suit filed by the appellant is to be decreed. The appellant's suit was for release/recovery of money.

4. The suit was filed in the year 2004 along with chamber summons. There were defects in the suit which were intimated to the appellant in the year 2010 by the Registry of the High Court. The appellant cured the defects after grant of extension of time by the High Court. Though the defects were cured within the extended time, as granted, there was an appeal (against the extension granted) which ended in the year 2014 by a remand of the matter to the learned single judge of the High Court. The learned single judge of the High Court thereafter issued summons in the suit and passed the aforesaid order closing the question of interest for the interim period i.e. 2004 to 2014.

2

5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have taken note of the relevant facts as well as Rule 6 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court of Calcutta, as placed before us.

6. From the facts stated above there is no manner of doubt that though the appellant should have prosecuted his appeal in the right earnest the Registry of the High Court also did not inform the appellant of the defects in the appeal filed in the year 2004 until the year 2010. The defects were cured within the extended time granted by the Court which order was subjected to appeal. The said appeal remained pending and was disposed of in the year 2014.

7. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are of the view that the order of the High Court closing the chapter of interest for the aforesaid

3

interim period (i.e. 2004 to 2014) was not justified. While we do not consider it necessary to apportion the blame for what had happened we cannot lose sight of the belated action on the part of the High Court Registry in informing the appellant about the defects in the appeal filed as also the fact that the appeal filed by the respondent before the High Court remained pending for nearly four years, a fact over which the present appellant had no control.

8. In the above circumstances, we allow the appeal(s) and set aside the order(s) of the High Court. No costs.

....................,J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

...................,J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 28, 2016 4