Delhi High Court
M/S Siemens Ltd. & Ors vs Vinay Bazaz on 20 December, 2010
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.377/1998
% 20th December, 2010
M/S SIEMENS LTD. & ORS ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Hemant Malhotra, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Sharad
Malhotra, Advocate.
VERSUS
VINAY BAZAZ .... Respondent
Through: Mr. J.P.Sengh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. H.S.Bullar, Mr. Saurabh
Kumar and Mr. Gaurav
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is to the impugned judgment and
decree dated 30.4.1998 whereby the respondent/plaintiff's suit for recovery
was decreed on account of charges due from the appellant for shipping of
consignments.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly argued only two
points in support of his appeal. The first argument was that the suit was
barred by limitation as the account was not an open mutual current account
under Article 1 of the Limitation Act,1963. The second argument was that
the rate of interest claimed and awarded was at an exorbitant rate of 24%
p.a. till the date of filing of the suit and even pendente lite and future
interest is at 18% per annum, both of which rates of interest considering the
present interest regime ought to be much lower.
3. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, I note that the three bills
for which payments are claimed by the respondent/plaintiff are dated
19.8.1993 (Ex.PW1/16), 30.8.1993(Ex.PW1/17) and 4.10.1993 (Ex.PW 1/18).
The suit has been filed on 19.8.1996. In terms of Section 12(1) of Limitation
Act, 1963 in computing the period of limitation for a suit, the date from
which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. When we exclude
19.8.1993, the limitation will commence on 20.8.1993 and the suit could
have been filed till 19.8.1996. The suit has in fact been filed on 19.8.1996.
The subsequent bills are in fact dated 30.8.1993 and 4.10.1993 which are
well within limitation. The argument of limitation is therefore devoid of
merits and is rejected.
4. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, I completely agree with the
counsel for the appellant. Considering the consistent fall in rates of interest
and the present interest regime, as also various judgments of the Supreme
Court granting reduced rates of interest, I feel that in the facts and
circumstances, the interest on the principal amount due being Rs.1,84,093/-
should be 14% per annum simple. Therefore, partly modifying the judgment
and decree, interest is granted till the date of filing of the suit, pendente lite
and future interest till realization at 14% per annum. Interest will be payable
from the respective dates of the bills.
I note that the appellant had deposited the decretal amount in this
court and in view of the modification of the judgment and decree, amount
will in fact be repayable to the appellant by the respondent. The counsel for
the respondent agrees that the amount to be refunded, will be paid back
within a period of two months from today and on repaying the same, the
security furnished by the respondent will stand discharged and it is agreed
between the parties that the decree will accordingly stand satisfied.
5. The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly, being partly allowed,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial court record be sent back.
CM No. 482/1999
Since the appeal has been disposed of, this application is not pressed
and is disposed of as such.
DECEMBER 20, 2010 VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J
ib
