Madras High Court

Tinna Overseas Limited vs Jai Bharat Tanners on 18 June, 2025

                                                                                      A.S.No.498 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 18-06-2025

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

                                                  A.S.No.498 of 2019

                     Tinna Overseas Limited
                     represented by its Senior Manager N.K.Singh,
                     A-151, Mayapuri, Phase-II,
                     New Delhi – 110 064.

                                                                                        Appellant(s)

                                                               Vs

                     1.Jai Bharat Tanners
                     a registered partnership firm consisting of
                       1.P.S.Rajagopal Naidu
                       2.P.S.Balaji Naidu
                       3.P.S.Krishnamoorthy Naidu
                       4.P.S.Ramamoorthy Naidu
                       5.O.R.Varadarajulu
                       6.P.R.Viswanath
                       7.A.S.Ramamoorthy
                       8.P.S.Govindasamy
                       9.A.R.Ramanujam
                       10.N.P.Ramakrishna
                       11.A.R.Subramani and
                       12.O.K.Raghuram
                     as its partners and are carrying on business
                     at No.15, Sami Mudali Street, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003
                     represented by its Managing Partner S.Rajagopal Naidu

                     Page 1 of 26




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )
                                                                                             A.S.No.498 of 2019

                     2.Bachi Shoes Limited
                     15, Sami Mudali Street
                     Periamet, Chennai 600 003.

                                                                                             Respondent(s)



                                  Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 CPC to set aside the judgment and

                     decree dated 16.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.1248 of 2011 on the file of the

                     VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.



                                       For Appellant(s):        Mr.P.J.Rishikesh


                                       For Respondent(s): No appearance


                                                                  ORDER

Unsuccessful defendant has preferred the present appeal against the

judgment and decree dated 16.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.1248 of 2011 on

the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The parties are referred to as per rankings in the trial Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

3. The suit was filed for recovery of money for a sum of

Rs.17,91,568.25/- with subsequent interest at 21% per annum on the

principal amount of Rs.14,22,566.12/- from the date of plaint till the date of

payment and to pay the second plaintiff a sum of Rs.17,91,568.25/- with

subsequent interest at 21% per annum on the principal amount of

Rs.14,22,566.12/- from the date of plaint till the date of payment and for

costs.

4. The Court below decreed the suit with costs directing the

defendant to pay the second plaint a sum of Rs.17,91,568.25/- together with

interest at 21% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.14,22,566.12/-

from the date of plaint till the date of payment.

5. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

The plaintiffs are the manufacturers and dealers of finished leather

and they have been supplying to the defendant the finished leather from the

year 1988. The plaintiffs normally insist on the buyers inland letter of credit.

On the request of the Managing Director of the defendant, the defendant has

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

been paying bills regularly till June 1995. Thereafter, there had been

enormous delay. The plaintiffs have sent a telex message dated 25.08.1995

to remit the amounts due. On the same day, the defendant sent a reply telex

informing that they will be sending a Demand Draft for Rs.7,61,964.26/- on

the next day and the balance amount will be paid in one week's time. Again,

the plaintiffs sent a telex message dated 07.09.1995 in respect of the bills

dated 07.08.1995 to 07.09.1995 amounting Rs.10,45,626.06/-. The

defendant on 13.09.1995 sent a fax message stating that they received the

telex messages. The defendant sent a letter dated 13.09.1995 and informed

that in the said order they are due only Rs.13,435.33/- instead of

Rs.10,45,626.06/- payable by them. The plaintiffs state that the six items

mentioned by the defendant amounting to Rs.9,84,350.63/- as a counter

claim is baseless. The plaintiffs sent a reply dated 18.09.1995 and called

upon the defendant to remit the amount due. The defendant returned some

materials by train with ulterior motive without even insuring the same. The

plaintiffs sent a protest for having sent the goods without any basis, without

insurance and informed the defendant that they will be engaging surveyor to

examine the materials sent. The plaintiff sent a telex message dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

23.09.1995 and called upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,45,626.06/-

The defendant by letter dated 25.09.1995 informed that according to their

books, the amount due was Rs.9,97,785.96/- and they wanted details only

with regard to Rs.47,840/-. The defendants have returned the goods worth

Rs.3,60,369.21/- with ulterior motive by debit note dated 15.09.1995. The

defendants placed order for supply of three items. The plaintiffs have made

ready for delivery of goods. The defendant's representative Krishnan had

admitted having seen the materials made ready for inspection as on

08.09.1995, but, he did not turn up for inspection. As such, allegations to

the contrary that the plaintiffs failed to supply the said goods within the

stipulated period and the foreign buyers have canceled the order are all

false. As per the contract, the defendant is liable to pay interest at 21 % per

annum for the belated payment. The plaintiffs have sent a notice dated

04.11.1995 and called upon the defendant to pay the sum of

Rs.19,37,287.65/- due as on date. The defendant received the said notice

and sent a reply dated 10.11.1995. The items manufactured under order

nos.1261 and 1278 could not be sold, as the same has been manufactured

for the specific order of the defendant and the same cannot be sold to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

anyone locally and hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to treat the value of

the two items amounting to Rs.3,17,710.68/-. The defendant is due owing to

the plaintiffs the sum of Rs.17,91,568.25/-. Hence the suit.

6. The brief case of the defendant is as follows:

In respect of the various supplies made by the plaintiffs, as per the

bills, a sum of Rs.9,97,785.96/- was due and payable. But, the said amount

was adjusted towards the amount payable by the plaintiffs is

Rs.9.82,775.63/- to the defendant. Out of the bill amount, only a sum of

Rs.15.010.33/- is payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs. In each

purchase order, delivery time has been fixed and in all commercial

contracts, time fixed for performance of the contract is the essence and the

plaintiffs had delayed the delivery of goods. The loss itself runs to several

lakhs of rupees. The allegations contained in paragraph no.6 of the plaint

that the defendant mentioned six items amounting Rs.9,84,350.60/- is

baseless and untenable, is absolutely false. In fact, the materials were not

according to the quality and they were not fit for the purpose, for which,

they were ordered. Hence, the defendant had no alternative, but, to return

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

the materials. There is no obligation on the part of the defendant to insure

the materials and unless the goods are accepted, the plaintiffs have no

manner of right to claim any amount. The plaintiffs had not kept ready the

goods, as per the orders placed by the defendant. It is not correct to state

that as against the order nos.1262, 1272 and 1278, the plaintiffs had

manufactured the materials and kept ready for inspection. The defendant's

representative found that the quality of the material was not good and

informed the same to the plaintiffs. The question of liability to pay a sum of

Rs.3,57,512.63/- towards additional sale tax and CST turnover does not

arise at all. The defendant denies that the plaintiffs had sold the goods

covered under order no.1272 at Rs.30 per sq.ft. as against the contract rate

of Rs.38.50 is not admitted. The defendant does not owe any money to the

plaintiffs expect the sum of Rs.15,010.33/-. The defendant denies that it is

liable to pay interest at 21% per annum. There is no contract nor any

provision of law, under which, the plaintiffs are entitled interest at the rate

of 21% per annum. There are no merits in the suit and the defendant

therefore prays that the suit be dismissed with costs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed

the following issues:

(1) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(2) Whether the defendants is entitled to adjust items III to VII mentioned

in paragraphs 4 of the written statement towards amount due and payable to the plaintiffs?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs have not manufactured and made ready for

inspection the items against order nos.1262, 1272 and 1278 and the material made ready against order no.1272 as not good as alleged in paragraph 12 of the written statement?

(4) Whether the defendant is not liable to pay additional sales tax amount

of Rs.3,57,513.63/- with interest as claimed in the plaint?

(5) Whether the defendant is liable to pay interest on the amounts due to

the plaintiffs?

(6) Whether the defendant is liable to pay any amount in respect of the

materials returned as defective?

(7) Whether materials valued at the sum of Rs.3,60,369.20/- are defective

as alleged and whether return of the same is valid for all or any of the reasons contained in paragraph 12 of the written statement?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

Additional issues were also framed as follows:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim suit amount as prayed for?

(2) To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?

8. On the side of the plaintiffs, V.Ashok Kumar, Managing

Director, was examined as PW1 and through him Ex.A1 to A48 were

marked and further N.Babu, Accounts Manager, was examined as PW2 and

through him Ex.A49 to A59 were marked. On the side of the defendant, one

V.Srinivasa Rao, Manager of the defendant company, was examined as

DW1 and no documents were marked.

9. Findings of the trial Court:

9.1 During pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff sold its business

in favour of the second plaintiff in the suit. I.A.No.11951 of 2011 has been

filed under Order 22 Rule 10 on behalf of the first plaintiff to implead the

second plaintiff as party to the suit and the same was allowed. Subsequently,

the plaint also came to be amended. Hence, the suit is maintainable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

9.2 The defendant have not come forward to file any counter claim

or any set off by giving details of amount to be adjusted under items (iii)

and (iv) from the total claim made by the plaintiffs, as claimed by the

plaintiffs and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount in respect of the

materials returned as defective.

9.3 As per Exs.P40 and P41, it reveals that having failed in their

attempt to make the Sales Tax Department to desist from levying 2% sales

tax, the first plaintiff informing the same to the defendant and the defendant

also complying the request of the first plaintiff to pay 2% sales tax by

immediately paying a portion of the amount.

9.4 As per Exs.A52 to A54, it reveals that the plaintiff had already

paid 2% additional sales tax levied by the Commercial Tax Department for

the materials supplied to the defendant. Hence, the defendant is liable to pay

the additional sales tax of Rs.3,57,513.63/- with interest.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

9.5 The defendant has not denied placing of orders, whereas,

claimed that the materials were of poor quality, but, they have not come

forward to prove the same by producing additional evidence. The defendant

is liable to pay the amount under Exs.A1 to A9 amounting to

Rs.10,45,626.06/-.

9.6 Since these all are commercial transactions, the plaintiffs are

entitled to charge 21% on the value of the goods and therefore, the plaintiffs

are entitled to the suit amount with interest at the rate of 21% per annum.

10. The points for determination arises in this appeal is that,

(a) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled entitled to the suit amount as

claimed for?

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant

would submit that the trial Court had overlooked Ex.A19, the valid and

clinching evidence, which is supporting the case of the defendant and also

failed to consider the question as to how the defendant is responsible and

answerable to the plaintiffs' claim, when it has no liability. He would further

submit that the trial Court had failed to consider the items manufactured

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

under the alleged order nos.1262, 1272 and 1278 were not received and

supplied on the ground that the goods were not supplied in time for foreign

buyer obligation and thus, the contract was canceled. Further, he would

submit that the trial Court failed to consider Exs.A19 to A24 and there is no

contract in respect of the interest towards the supplied goods and at no point

of time, the defendant agreed to pay interest on the invoice value of the

goods supplied and thus, the finding of the trial Court directing the

defendant to pay interest at 21% per annum, as claimed by the plaintiff, is

erroneous and not correct. The learned counsel further argued that there is

no cause of action to file the suit at Chennai and the cause of action only

arises either at Vellore or Delhi and therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

To strengthen his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Swastik Gases Private Limited vs. Indian Oil Corporation

Limited reported in (2013) 9 SCC 32, to show that where two Courts have

territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute between the parties and the parties

have agreed that dispute should be tried by only one of them, the Court

mentioned in the agreement shall have jurisdiction and this principle has

been followed in many subsequent decisions.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/plaintiffs would submit that there is no pleading with regard to

objection raised on territorial jurisdiction. He would further submit that the

defendant has not at all filed any document to show that the amount claimed

by the plaintiffs has already been paid. Further, he would submit that though

V.Srinivasa Rao (DW1), Manager of the defendant company, was examined

as witness, the defendant has not come forward to file any counter claim or

any set off by giving any details of amount. He would further submit that all

the transactions between the parties are purely commercial in nature and the

plaintiffs are entitled to charge interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the

value of the goods.

13. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side

and perused the materials on record.

14. It is not in dispute that during pendency of the suit, the first

plaintiff sold its business and assistance including the right of recovery of

money in this case against the defendant in favour of the second plaintiff, as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

per Ex.A59, the order dated 09.04.2011 passed by the Government of India

permitting the second plaintiff to run as a public limited company. It is also

not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.11951 of

2011 under Order 22 Rule 10 to implead the second defendant as a party to

the suit and the same was allowed by the Court below on merits.

15. The main contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is

that the first plaintiff was having office at Vellore and the goods were

dispatched at New Delhi and Chennai has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In

this regard, there is no specific averments in the written statement or in the

evidence adduced by V.Srinivasa Rao (DW1). The second plaintiff has

stepped into the shoes of the first plaintiff and conducted the suit against the

defendant. The second plaintiff is having its registered office at Chennai and

therefore, a part of the cause of action arises at Chennai and therefore, the

trial Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. It is apposite to mention

that that the defendant has not chosen to file any interlocutory application to

decide territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and also not taken any

legal steps to strike of the plaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

16. According to the defendant, the materials to the value of

Rs.2,97,976.53/- was returned to the plaintiff as defective and further

another bulk of materials for the value of Rs.62,392.08/- was also returned

to the plaintiff as defective. It is also contended that the returned value of

materials and also 2% added in price on the materials towards additional

sales tax paid over the returned goods along with freight charges on the

returned amount in total to the tune of Rs.9,82,775.63/- has to be adjusted

from the total value of the bill for the goods supplied. According to the

plaintiffs in the statement of account annexed in the plaint, a sum of

Rs.3,60,369.21/- is debited or adjusted from the total value of goods

supplied and after deducting a sum of Rs.3,60,369.25/- being the value of

the defective goods returned by the defendant, finally a sum of

Rs.17,91,568.25/- has arrived.

17. It is seen that the additional sales tax is due from the period

between 1992 and 1993, but, the goods returned by the defendant pertain to

the year 1995. V.Srinivasa Rao (DW1), Manager of the defendant company,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

has not chosen to file any details of amount to be adjusted under items (iii)

and (iv) from the total claim made by the plaintiffs. Without filing any

documentary evidence with regard to the adjusted items (iii) and (iv) as

stated in paragraph no.4 of the written statement from the total claim made

by the plaintiffs, the contention of the defendant that they are not liable to

pay any amount in respect of the materials returned as defective is not

acceptable one.

18. The next contention of the defendant is that the defendant is

not liable to pay additional sales tax amount of Rs.3,57,513.63/- with

interest as claimed by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiff, the liability

to pay Central Sales Tax for the supplies made to the defendant is upon the

defendant right from the commencement of the transaction between them

from 1988 and the defendant used to send “C” Forms to the plaintiffs and

pay 1% sales tax upon the value of the goods supplied. It is not in dispute

that the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes of Tamil Nadu have issued

Circular letter dated 29.04.1993, wherein, demanding additional 2% sales

tax for the year 1992-1993. Then, there was litigation, wherein, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

manufacturers association filed writ petition before this court and the same

was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent a letter dated 27.12.1993

informing the same to the defendant that in future additional 2% sales tax

would be included in the future bills and this was also accepted by the

defendant by its letter dated 28.02.1994. After accepting the same, the

defendant also paid a sum of Rs.1,68,195.06/- towards portion of sales tax

by way of cheque and the same is revealed as per Exs.A40 & 41.

19. As per Ex.A40 & 41, it reveals that having failed another

attempt to make the sales tax department to desist from levying 2% sales

tax, the first plaintiff informing the same to the defendant and the defendant

also complying the request of the first plaintiff to pay 2% sales tax by

paying the amount. Ex.A54 is the information given by the Commercial Tax

Officer to the first plaintiff and it reveals that the plaintiffs had already paid

2% sales tax for the materials supplied to the defendant. In the view of the

above transactions and amount paid by the plaintiffs, the defendant is liable

to pay the additional sales tax amounting to Rs.3,57,513.63/- with interest.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

20. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant placed purchase

orders for supply of three items and the plaintiffs got the materials ready

under order no.1262 dated 28.02.1995 to the value of Rs.1,79,710.68/-,

order no.1272 dated 19.05.1995 to the value of Rs.2,81,235.96/- and order

no.1278 dated 30.08.1995 to the value of Rs.1,38,000/- and also informed

that the materials being made ready, in turn, the defendant's representative

Krishnan visited the plaintiffs' factory and seen the materials made ready for

inspection on 08.09.1995.

21. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the items were

specifically manufactured at the request of the defendant and the same could

not be sold in open market and they are still lying unused. The second order

no.1272 was sold in open market at the rate of Rs.30 per sq.ft. instead of the

contracted rate of Rs.38/- and due to the non execution of orders, the

plaintiffs incurred loss to the tune of Rs.3,17,710.68/-. Instead of making

payment, the defendant returned the goods worth Rs.3,60,369.21/-which

were supplied long back. The defendant having been admitted placing of

orders, but, contended that the materials were of poor quality. In order to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

prove the same, the defendant has not chosen to adduce any documentary

evidence. Therefore, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff, had been

discharged and the burden shifts on the defendant, has not been discharged.

22. As per Exs.A1 to A9, the plaintiffs have supplied finished

leather to the defendant to the value of Rs.10,45,626.06/- and the same is

not denied by the defendant. In this regard, telex messages exchanged

between the plaintiffs and the defendant under Exs.A10 to A13, A25 to A29,

and A31 to A35 were marked, which reveal that the plaintiffs repeatedly

made demand and subsequently, the plaintiffs were constrained to issue

legal notice under Ex.A36 and for which, the defendant chosen to give a

reply under Ex.A37.

23. It is seen from the telex messages that the last supply of the

goods were made under the invoice no.156 dated 07.09.1995 and the

demands were made and they were noted as outstanding from 1995

onwards. The plaintiffs state that though the defendant is a customer of the

plaintiffs from the year 1988 onwards, the defendant defaulted payment

only from the year 1995.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

24. In order to prove the claim of the plaintiffs, as many as

documents were filed. The plaintiffs company's Manager Ashok Kumar

(PW1) was examined and through him Exs.A1 to A48 were marked.

Similarly, N.Babu (PW2), Accounts Manager, was examined and through

him Exs.A49 to A59 were marked.

25. Except, the oral evidence of Srinivasa Rao (DW1), Manager of

the defendant company, no documents were filed to establish their claim

that the amount claimed by the plaintiffs had already been adjusted or paid

to be plaintiffs. The defendant also have not come forward to file any

counter claim or any set off by giving details to be adjusted as claimed by

them.

26. In the written statement, the defendant had admitted that in

respect of various supplies made by the plaintiffs as per the bills, a sum of

Rs.9,97,785.96/- was due and payable, but, the said amount was adjusted

towards the amount payable by the plaintiff amounting Rs.9,82,775.63/- to

the defendant and therefore, out of the bill amount only a sum of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

Rs.15,010.33/- is payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs. In order to

prove the above said facts, the defendant has not filed any documents to that

effect. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs has been proved.

27. The next point for determination in this appeal is with regard to

rate of interest awarded by the Court below. Though the plaintiffs claimed

interest on the amount, it is to be noted that there is no contract, whatsoever,

for paying any interest. In the absence of any specific contract, it is the duty

of the plaintiff to issue notice in writing claiming interest. At his juncture, it

is relevant to refer Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978:

Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978:

“3. Power of court to allow interest.- (1) In any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole or part of the following period, that is to say,-

(a) if the proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then, from the date when the debt is payable to the date of institution of the proceedings;

(b) if the proceedings do not relate to any such debt, them from the date mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable that interest will be claimed, to the date of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

institution of the proceedings:

Provided that where the amount of the debt or damages has been repaid before the institution of the proceedings, interest shall not be allowed under this section for the period after such repayment. (2) Where, in any such proceedings as are mentioned in sub- section (1),-

(a) judgment, order or award is given for a sum which, apart from interest on damages, exceeds four thousand rupees, and

(b) the sum represents or includes damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person or in respect of a person' s death, then, the power conferred by that sub-

section shall be exercised so as to include in that sum interest on those damages or on such part of them as the court considers appropriate for the whole or part of the period, from the date mentioned in the notice to the date of institution of the proceedings, unless the Court is satisfied that there are special reasons why no interest should be given in respect of those damages.

(3) Nothing in this section,-

(a) shall apply in relation to-

(i) any debt or damages upon which interest is payable as of right, by virtue of any agreement; or

(ii) any debt or damages upon which payment of interest is' barred, by virtue of an express agreement;

(b) shall affect-

(i) the compensation recoverable for the dishonour of a bill of exchange, promissory note or cheque, as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881 ); or

(ii) the provisions of rule 2 of Order II of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; (5 of 1908 )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

28. It is apposite to mention that, from the above section, it is very

clear that for claiming interest, demand shall be made by the party

concerned. In this regard it useful to refer Section 34 of CPC, which reads

as follows:

“34. Interest - (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit :

[Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.

Explanation I. - In this sub-section, "nationalised bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II. - For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.] (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

29. It is germane to mention that proviso to Section 34 CPC

provides that in respect of the liability in relation to the sum adjudged,

which had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further

interest may exceed 6% per annum, but, shall not exceed the contractual rate

of interest. It is further provided that if there is no contractual rate that the

rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation

to commercial transactions for such further interest is to be granted.

30. In the present case, admittedly, the liability has arisen out of

commercial transactions, but, there was no contract inter se the parties and

therefore, the rate of interest at 21% per annum granted by the Court below

from the date of plaint till the date of payment on the principal amount

cannot be sustained. This Court, invoking Section 34 IPC, is inclined to

reduce the rate of interest awarded by the Court below from 21% per annum

to 9% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter

6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. The point

is answered accordingly.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 08:50:29 pm )

31. In the result, the First Appeal is partly allowed. The decree

passed by the Court below is modified as follows:

“The defendant is directed to pay the second plaintiff a sum of Rs.17,91,568.25/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.14,22,566.12/- from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter, interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

The other aspects of the decree passed by the Court below is confirmed.”

18-06-2025 nsd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

To

The VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.