Delhi High Court
Sagar T.V. & Radio Centre And ... vs M/S. Samsung India Electronics ... on 28 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.396/2001
% 28th February, 2011
SAGAR T.V. & RADIO CENTRE AND OTHERS ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Munish Tyagi, Advocate.
VERSUS
M/S. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LIMITED ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Lakhmi Chand, Advocate with Mr.
Niraj Singh, Advocate.
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)
+ RFA No.396/2001 and C.M. Nos.1150/2001 and 1428/2001
1. Learned counsel for the appellants does not press the appeal
except for reduction of the high rate of interest of 22% granted for the period
prior to the filing of the suit and for interest @ 11% granted pendente lite
and future.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that business of the
appellants has closed down and they are in grave financial difficulties. It is
RFA No.396/2001 Page 1 of 3
pleaded that the Supreme Court in its recent chain of judgments has
observed that on account of the changed economic scenario and the
consistent fall in the rates of interest, the Courts should reduce the rate of
interest especially considering the long pendency of litigation. I may note
that in this case litigation is pending for almost twelve years. The judgments
of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra
Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC
678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and
others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700 & Krishna
Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 and
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3
Arb. LR 140 (SC)
3. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pt.
Munshi Ram vs. DDA decided on 22nd July, 2010 (Paras 16 & 20) and to
which I was a party, has held that in case even the pre suit rate of interest is
illegal or against the public policy, the same can be interfered with by the
Courts. In the present case, the rate of interest of 22% per annum is quite
clearly exorbitant. Learned counsel for the respondent could not show any
contrary judgment or argue otherwise with respect to the rate of interest. In
fact, there was almost no effective opposition to the request for reduction of
the rate of interest.
RFA No.396/2001 Page 2 of 3
4. In view of the above, I partially accept the appeal and decree the
suit of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,99,043.17/- with interest @
8% per annum simple from 30.5.1997 till the date of filing of the suit and
also @ 8% per annum simple pendente lite and future till realization of the
decretal amount. I may however state that this concession in the rate of
interest will only be applicable in case the appellants/defendants pay the
decretal amount within a period of six months from today. In case, the
amount is not paid within six months from today, the concession granted in
the rate of interest will stand withdrawn and the impugned judgment and
decree will stand as it is.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants states that liberty should be
granted to deposit the decretal amount in this Court. The aforesaid liberty is
granted and the decretal amount can be deposited in this Court. On deposit
of the decretal amount, the bank guarantee furnished by the appellants shall
stand discharged.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is accordingly
disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be
prepared. Trial Court record be sent back.
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
