Karnataka High Court
Ms/ S S Plastics vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 3 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
RFA No. 200058 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200058 OF 2016 (MON)
BETWEEN:
M/S. S.S.PLASTICS
PLOT. NO. P-13, KAPNUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
HUMNABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI,
THROUGH ITS PARTNER:P WADIRAJ,
S/O HANMANTHCHARYA PUROHIT,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O PLOT NO.3 NGO'S COLONY,
JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
(BY SRI. UDAY P.HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.
2. ZILLA PANCHAYAT
THROUGH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
OLD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
KALABURAGI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
RFA No. 200058 of 2016
3. ZILLA PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING DIVISION
THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OPP:AIWAN-E-SHAHI GUEST HOUSE,
KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1,
SRI.VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE IIND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
KALABURGI IN O.S.NO.65/2009 DATED 09.09.2015 AND
THEREBY GRANTING THE RELIEF IN ADDITION TO WHAT HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT, I.E. INTEREST ON THE
AMOUNT DUE TO THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AS PER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INTERESTS ON DELAYED PAYMENTS TO
SMALL SCALE AND ANCILLARY INDUSTRIES ACT, 1993 AND
FUTURE INTEREST WITH COST THROUGHOUT IN FAVOUR OF
THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY RAJESH RAI K J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Regular First Appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 09.09.2015 passed in
O.S.No.65/2009 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Kalaburagi, wherein the suit filed by the appellant was
partly decreed directing the plaintiff to recover the amount
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
of Rs.9,58,034/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum from the date of registering the case as suit till
passing of the judgment and interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the said amount till its realization within three
months from the date of passing of the decree.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Trial Court.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are
that the plaintiff is the registered partnership firm
manufacturing 'Sagarshree' Brand PVC pipes and conduits.
The defendant Zilla Panchayat was in need of huge
quantity of PVC pipes. The defendant No.3 placed the
order for supply of PVC pipes to the plaintiff during the
years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. Accordingly, the
plaintiff supplied and delivered the pipes to the Zilla
Panchayat Engineering Division, Kalaburagi. Thereafter,
the defendant No.3 has not made the payment of those
bills and they withheld the payment of bills for a long time.
The total particulars price/costs supplied by the plaintiff is
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
for Rs.22,12,127/-. It is further averred that the plaintiff
is a small scale industry and the plaintiff has invested
huge amount for manufacture of pipes. The defendants
used those pipes supplied by the plaintiff but failed to
make payment of the bills. Hence, the plaintiff got issued
legal notices to the defendants under Section 80 of CPC
read with Section 295 of Panchayat Raj Act. Those notices
were served on the defendants on 05.10.1999 as per
postal receipts and postal acknowledgements. Inspite of
the same, they have not made any payment nor given any
reply to the said notices. As such, the plaintiff has
instituted the suit.
4. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff filed
Misc.No.47/2000 and the defendants objected the same
contending that the petition was not maintainable.
Therefore, the Managing Partner of the plaintiff firm
himself was examined as PW.1 but the defendants have
not led any evidence. Subsequently, after considering the
evidence of PW.1 since he admitted that the defendants
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
have paid a sum of Rs.20,99,416/- and the claim
remaining is only for Rs.9,58,034/-, the suit is restricted
to that amount. Defendants have not filed the written
statement.
5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the
Managing Partner of the plaintiff firm was examined as
PW.1 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8.
However, defendants neither examined any witness nor
marked any document on their behalf.
6. The Trial Court on the basis of plaint averments
and evidence on record, framed the following points for its
consideration:
i. Whether the plaintiff firm proves that it is a
partnership firm having licence to run the
business as Small Scale Industries?
ii. Whether the plaintiff firm proves that the
defendants have purchased PVC pipes from
the firm and they are due to pay the bill
amount of Rs.9,58,034/- along with interest
at 18% per annum?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
iii. Whether the plaintiff firm is entitled for the
relief sought for?
iv. What order or Decree?
7. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the Trial Court answered the point No.1 in the
affirmative, point Nos.2 and 3 partly in affirmative and
point No.4 as per the final order and thereby partly
decreed the suit as stated supra. The plaintiff being
aggrieved by not granting interest on the delayed period
at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount due
preferred this appeal.
8. Heard Sri.Uday P.Honguntikar, learned counsel
for the appellant/plaintiff, Smt.Maya T.R., learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/defendant
No.1 and Sri.Venkatesh C. Mallabadi, learned counsel for
respondent No.2/defendant No.2.
9. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the Trial Court
instead of granting interest at the rate of 18% per annum
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
in the suit granted interest only at the rate of 6% per
annum which is totally arbitrary, since the transaction is of
commercial nature. He would further contend that as per
the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
this Court, the trial Court ought to have granted interest at
the rate of 18% per annum for the decretal amount from
the date of suit till its realization. Accordingly, he prays to
modify the decree to that effect.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.2/defendant No.2 contended that the Trial Court after
considering the facts and circumstances of the case rightly
awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. He would
further contend that though the transaction is of
commercial in nature, by considering the evidence and
other materials, the Trial Court opined that awarding 6%
interest per annum would meet the ends of justice and
accordingly, passed the judgment and decree. Hence, he
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties so also having perused the documents,
the points that would arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in
granting interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of judgment till its
realization?
2. What order or decree?
12. Point No.1: On careful perusal of the evidence
and documents available on record, it is not in dispute that
there is transaction between the plaintiff and defendants
and also defendants are liable to pay the amount due of
Rs.9,58,034/- which is proved by the documents placed
before the Trial Court by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the
defendants have not seriously disputed the same.
However, the Trial Court in the operative portion of the
order has held that the plaintiff is entitled for interest at
the rate of 18% per annum from the date of registration of
suit till passing of the judgment and also entitled for
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
till its realization. When the Trial Court has granted
interest at the rate of 18% per annum during the
pendency of the suit, the Trial Court ought to have
granted interest at the rate of 18% per annum even after
disposal of the suit. Thus, in our considered view, the Trial
Court has committed an error in granting interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of passing of
judgment till its realization. Hence, the impugned
judgment passed by the Trial Court to the extent of
awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of judgment till its realization is required to be
interfered with. Hence, we answer point No.1 raised above
in the affirmative.
13. Point No.2: In view of the above discussion,
we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part with cost.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3529-DB
ii. The judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court is modified.
iii. The plaintiff is entitled for interest at the
rate of 18% per annum from the date of
judgment till its realization.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
Ct; BN
