Karnataka High Court
Vajhi Trading Company vs Ittina Properties Private Limited on 20 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7170
RFA No. 204 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 204 OF 2011 (MON)
BETWEEN:
VAJHI TRADING COMPANY,
#20, K.M. LANE, 2ND FLOOR,
S.P ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE-560 002.
BY IT'S PROPRIETOR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S V GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE [PH])
AND:
ITTINA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,
#1054, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 034.
Digitally signed BY IT'S DIRECTOR.
by
ANNAPURNA G ...RESPONDENT
Location: High (BY SRI V B SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
Court of
Karnataka
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.10.2010 PASSED IN
O.S.1937/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI-ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
THE RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7170
RFA No. 204 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed
in OS No.1937/2008 by the learned XXXI Additional City
Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dated 06-10-2010, the plaintiff
is before this Court in appeal assailing the refusal of the
trial Court to grant interest on the suit claim amount.
2. The plaintiff had approached the trial Court
contending that the defendant had purchased various
hardware items for construction of the building and later
the defendant did not pay the amount for the value of the
goods purchased. Therefore, a legal notice was issued to
the defendant and despite service of notice, the defendant
failed to pay the amount claimed. The plaintiff instituted
the suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,367-93 ps., along with
interest at 24% P.A., and the cost of the suit.
3. On issuance of summons, the defendant
appeared and filed his written statement contending that
the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and
denied the purchase orders as well as the receipt of the
NC: 2024:KHC:7170
goods under the invoices. The defendant also denied the
claim saying that there was no such agreement to pay
interest at 24% p.a. as sought by the plaintiff.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues were framed by the trial Court:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant issued five
purchase orders and plaintiff supplied the goods as
per specification and defendant is due to a sum of
Rs.1,00,367-93 ps?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest as
prayed for?
3. Whether the defendant proves that suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as
prayed for?
5. What decree or order?
5. The proprietor of plaintiff-Company was
examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P20 were marked in
his evidence. The defendant neither cross- examined the
plaintiff nor adduced any evidence in their defence.
NC: 2024:KHC:7170
6. After hearing the arguments by learned counsel
for plaintiff as the defendant's counsel has not submitted
the arguments, the trial Court answered issue Nos. 1
and 4 partly in the affirmative and issue Nos. 2 and 3 in
the negative and decreed the suit in part for Rs.82,730/-
only denying the interest portion claimed by the plaintiff
and also rejected the claim of the interest at 24% p.a..
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
plaintiff is before this Court in appeal assailing the
rejection of the claim for the interest.
8. On issuance of notice, respondent/plaintiff
appeared through his counsel. On admitting the Appeal,
the trial Court records have been secured.
9. A perusal of the evidence available on record
would disclose that the plaintiff being the supplier of
various types of valves, pipes and pipe fittings, flanges
etc., had supplied material to defendant under the invoices
at Exs.P7 to P11 against the purchase orders of the
NC: 2024:KHC:7170
defendant at Exs.P1 to P6. The payable value of the
goods delivered was to the tune of Rs.82,730/-. Though
the defendant had denied the delivery of the goods under
the invoices, the version of PW1 was not rebutted by
defendant. It is evident that the transaction between the
plaintiff and defendant was a commercial transaction.
While deciding issue No.4 regarding the interest, the trial
Court has held that the invoices do not contain any
agreement to the effect that the defendant is liable to pay
interest at 24% p.a., and on this ground the claim was
rejected.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the transaction being a commercial
transaction, the trial Court should have awarded the
interest at the market rates or it should have resorted to
the provision of Section 34 of CPC, where by statutory
interest should have been awarded by it.
11. There is no dispute that the transaction
between the plaintiff and defendant is commercial in
NC: 2024:KHC:7170
nature. In the absence of any agreement between the
parties, there was no impediment for the trial Court to
grant interest at statutory rate as per Section 34 of CPC.
So also, the claim of the plaintiff that it was entitled for a
sum of Rs.1,00,366.93 ps., was not proved to be incorrect
when the claim is made and the evidence led by the
plaintiff is not rebutted by any cogent evidence by the
defendant. Obviously, reducing the suit claim amount to
Rs.82,730/- was not justified. Under the circumstances,
the trial Court clearly erred in reducing the claim
amount, so also in not awarding interest on the suit claim
amount and also not awarding the future interest on the
decreetal amount. Hence, the impugned judgment and
decree to the extent stated above deserves to be
modified. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be
allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:7170
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court is modified.
(iii) The defendant is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,367.93 paise along with interest at 15% p.a. from
the date of petition till its realization to the plaintiff.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
