Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus RAVINDRA AND ORS.

Decided
7 May 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 520 · 1996 INSC 629
Also cited as
  • (1996) 5 SCC 279 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

After hearing learned Attorney General and amicus curaie S/Shri A Subba Rao, Ranjit Kumar and K.M.K. Nair on (the interpretation of the provisions of Section 34, CPC on "the principal sum adjudged" the matter is required to be considered by a Constitution Bench. The learned Attorney General has drawn our attention to the judgments of this Court in Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gouda & Ors., [1994] 5 SCC 213 and Bank of Baroda v. Jagannath, C.A. No. 2785/87 decided on September 21, J.994 wherein he sought to draw the deduction that the principal sum adjudged and the principal sum mentioned later would be the same. He seeks to take support from the word "such" in support of his contention. Preceding Amendment Act 66 of 1956, the words were "aggregate sum so adjudged" and after Amendment, were substituted with the words "the principal sum adjudged", from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such "principal sum" for any period prior to the institution of the suit (with further interest on such date as the court deems reasonable on the "principal sum"). The distinction, therefore, was not drawn to the attention of this Court in the aforesaid two judgments in particular later one. As a fact no argument in this behalf appears to have been canvassed. Interpretation of the liability of the borrower to pay interest on the principal sum to include interest that became merged with the principal sum adjudged or principal sum as lent, is required to be authoritatively laid down by a Bench of five Judges.

pp. 520–521, margin G

The Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting the Constitution Bench. R.P.

p. 521, margin D