SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.T. Nanavati and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.

SLPs(C) No. 11807 of 1997 with No. 23684 of 1997. D/d. 15.5.1998.

Canara Bank - Petitioner

Versus

P.R.N. Upaadhyayaa & others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Pradeep Dewan, P.B. Aggarwala and Ms. P. Gautam, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- H.N. Salve, Senior Advocate, (K.S. Parihar, H.S. Parihar, P. Parihar, and G. Prabhakar, Advocates.

Bank Loan - Interest - Judgment in Bank of Patiala case, attention not drawn to second para of the notification as date of notification was 1.4.1981 and not 18.4.1991 - Decision required reconsideration - Hence, Registry directed to place the instant case before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

[Para 1]

Cases Referred :-

State Bank of Patiala v. Harbans Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 495.

ORDER

G.T. Nanavati, J. - It appears that attention of this Court when it decided the case of State Bank of Patiala v. Harbans Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 495. 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 mentioned therein as 18-4-1991, and the correct date of that circular 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 Hon. 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.

.