Delhi High Court
M/S Cimmco Limited vs Pramod Krishna Agrawal on 21 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 231/2013
% 21st February, 2019
M/S CIMMCO LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Sh. Ashish Verma, Advocate.
versus
PRAMOD KRISHNA AGRAWAL ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant
impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 11.01.2013 by which
the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for
an amount of Rs. 11,48,532/- along with pendente lite and future
interest at 12% per annum.
2. Out of the suit amount of Rs. 11,48,532/-, the principal
amount is only a sum of Rs. 3,48,870/-, and the same becomes clear
from para 5 of the impugned judgment. Therefore, the difference of
Rs. 11,48,532/- and Rs. 3,48,870/- is the claim towards pre-suit
interest, which is a huge amount of Rs. 7,99,662/-, as compared to the
principal amount of Rs. 3,48,870/-. The rate of interest as per the
respondent/plaintiff works out to be approximately 12% per annum,
but the Ld. counsel for the appellant/defendant rightly points out that
as per calculation, the rate of interest cannot be 12% per annum, and if
the rate of interest was 12% per annum then this difference of amount
could not be Rs. 7,99,662/- but a lower amount.
3. The Ld. counsel for the appellant/defendant argues that
since there is consistent fall in the rate of interest, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be
granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future
interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon
the judgments in the cases of 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 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd
(2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC).
4. In sum and substance, the argument urged on behalf of
the appellant/defendant in the present case is that the
appellant/defendant is ready to pay the principal amount of Rs.
3,48,870/- along with a reasonable rate of interest, and that the rate of
interest must be awarded consistently at not more than 7½ % per
annum simple on the principal amount of Rs. 3,48,870/-.
5. In view of the judgments relied upon by the
appellant/defendant, this appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment and decree is modified whereby the suit of the
respondent/plaintiff will only stand decreed for a sum of Rs.
3,48,870/- alongwith interest at 7½ % per annum simple from
08.12.2000 and till the filing of the suit, and thereafter till
payment/deposit at the same rate on the aforesaid principal amount of
Rs. 3,48,870/-.
6. The appellant/defendant pursuant to the orders passed in
this appeal had deposited a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in this Court, and
this amount is lying in an FDR. The Registry will now calculate the
amount payable to the respondent/plaintiff in terms of the present
judgment, and only if and in case the amount lying deposited in this
Court is found to be more than the amount payable to the
respondent/plaintiff in terms of the present judgment, the balance
amount will then be refunded to the appellant/defendant. However,
the Registry before calculating the amount due and payable to the
appellant/defendant will make detailed calculations as to what is the
amount lying in the FDR as on date, and that what amount would be
payable to the respondent/plaintiff in terms of the present judgment.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is
accordingly partially allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
FEBRUARY 21, 2019/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
