Delhi High Court
M/S. Samtel Colour Limited vs M/S. Khemaka Containers Limited on 15 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 316/2001
% 15th February, 2011
M/S. SAMTEL COLOUR LIMITED ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. B. L. Wali, Advocate.
VERSUS
M/S. KHEMAKA CONTAINERS LIMITED ...... Respondent
Through: None
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. This case is on the 'Regular Board' of this Court since
3.1.2011. Today, it is effective item No.5 on the regular list. It is 12.50
P.M. but no one appears for the respondent. I have therefore heard the
learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record and am
proceeding to dispose of the appeal.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant very fairly
presses the only issue of the high interest rate of 18% per annum granted
by the impugned judgment and decree for the pre-suit period on the
principal amount of Rs.1,42,062/-. Learned counsel for the appellant
RFA No. 316/2001 Page 1 of 3
relies upon the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in which it is
stated that in view of the changed economic scenario and the fall in the
rates of interest, the Court should reduce the high rates of interest which
are granted, especially considering the long pendency of litigation. These
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. I may note that there was no proof filed before the trial Court
that during the relevant period in the year 1995, that the commercial rate
of interest was 18% per annum. Even in the legal notice dated 20.6.1998
sent by the respondent to the appellant, the rate of interest of 18% has
been claimed without mentioning that the same is the prevalent
commercial rate of interest. I may note that in fact this notice dated
20.6.1998 has not been proved in the trial Court, i.e. the same has not
been exhibited, and has been only marked as Mark I. I am, therefore,
inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the
facts which emerge on record and also the judgments of the Supreme
Court. In the facts and circumstances therefore I consider it appropriate
that instead of 18% per annum the respondent/plaintiff would be entitled
RFA No. 316/2001 Page 2 of 3
to interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,42,062/-
from 1.11.1995 till the filing of the suit. I may note that the trial Court has
granted the same rate of interest i.e. 12% per annum simple, pendent lite
and future and therefore there was no reason to grant a different rate of
interest for the period prior to the filing of the suit.
4. The appeal is therefore partially allowed by reducing the rate
of interest from 18% to 12% per annum simple on the principal amount of
Rs.1,42,062/- from 1.11.1995 till the date of filing of the suit on
30.10.1998.
The future interest from the date of the decree will be payable @
12% per annum till the appellant deposited the decreetal amount in this
Court. Decree sheet be prepared. The appellant has deposited the entire
decretal amount in this Court. The respondent was allowed to withdraw
this amount against the security vide order dated 25.11.2003 but the
same has not been withdrawn by the respondent. Appellant is held
entitled to withdraw the excess amount deposited in this Court i.e. in
excess of the decree passed today. Trial Court record be sent back.
FEBRUARY 15, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
