Delhi High Court
S.K. Malhotra (Huf) vs Man Mohan Modi on 6 November, 2009
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 53/1997
Date of decision : 06.11.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :
S.K. MALHOTRA (HUF) ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
versus
MAN MOHAN MODI ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes.
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the
judgment dated 18.12.1996 rendered in a summary suit for recovery
of Rs.1,76,085/- filed by the appellant against the respondent under
Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid suit was
decreed ex-parte in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.1,17,000/-
with proportionate costs and future interest payable @ 12% per
annum against the respondent.
2. The appellant, who appears in person, states that he is
aggrieved by the impugned judgment limited to non-grant of
pendentelite interest claimed by him @ 18% per annum. The suit is
based on a claim of the appellant that in the year 1982, he had
advanced a loan of Rs.1,17,000/- to the respondent. As the loan
advanced was not repaid by the respondent, the appellant was
compelled to institute a suit against him in the trial court. Though the
respondent entered appearance and contested the suit by filing a
written statement, thereafter, he stopped appearing and was
proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.10.1996. The suit was
ultimately decreed in favour of the appellant on 18.12.1996. The
appellant submits that apart from future interest, he was also entitled
to grant of pendente lite interest on the sum of Rs.1,17,000/-,
particularly since the respondent continued to enjoy the principal
amount till the decree was passed. He further states that in the year
1997, the decretal amount was recovered by him in the execution
proceedings.
3. The summary suit was instituted by the appellant against
the respondent in September 1985. In the relief clause, the appellant
prayed for a decree of Rs.1,76,085/- against the respondent alongwith
pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of
institution of the suit, till the date of the decree and actual realization
of the amount. However, while passing the impugned judgment in
favour of the appellant, the trial court decreed the suit for
Rs.1,17,000/- with proportionate costs and future interest @ 12% per
annum against the respondent, without granting any interest for the
period w.e.f. 1982 till the date of institution of the suit, i.e.,
September 1985 and without granting any pendente lite interest.
Between the date of institution of the suit, i.e., September 1985 to the
date of the impugned judgment, i.e. 18.12.1996, over 11 years had
passed.
4. In the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department,
Government of Orissa and Others Vs. G.C.Roy reported as AIR 1992
SC 732, the Supreme Court held that a person is entitled to the
payment of interest on the principal amount and the security deposit
illegally retained, on the ground that the person deprived of the use of
money to which he is legitimately entitled, has a right to be
compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. Even in the
present case, it cannot be disputed that the appellant was deprived of
the use of the money to which he was legitimately entitled and thus he
had a right to be compensated for the period of deprivation at least
from the date of institution of the suit till the date of passing of the
decree.
5. This Court is therefore of the opinion that in the present
case, the appellant is entitled to pendent lite interest on the decretal
amount of Rs.1,17,000/-, apart from future interest already granted
under the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.1996.
However, the rate of interest as claimed by the appellant, i.e., 18%
per annum is declined being on the higher side. Having regard to the
then existing rate of interest in commercial transactions and the rate
of interest charged by the nationalized banks in such transactions at
the relevant time, the appellant is held entitled to pendente lite
interest @ 10% per annum on a sum of Rs.1,17,000/-.
6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The Registry is
directed to prepare a modified decree, in terms of the aforesaid order.
The trial court record be released forthwith.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 06, 2009 JUDGE
rkb
