JUDGMENT - SURESH H., J.:---The plaintiffs have filed this suit to recover a sum of Rs. 83,575.59 P. together with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of the bill of exchange, namely, 30th September, 1989.

2. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants are the acceptors of a hundi dated 12th March, 1987 payable within 90 days from the date of acceptance of the said hundi. There is also a notice dated 11th September, 1989 addressed to the defendants calling upon them to pay the amount. The defendants have not replied to the said notice. Hence the present suit.

3. The defendants have filed their affidavit-in-reply to the Summons for judgment. There are number of contentions. Firstly, they contend that the plaintiffs cannot claim interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum and their contention is that under the law, the plaintiffs could have claimed interest only at the rate of 6 percent per annum as the bill of exchange does not specify any rate of interest. The second contention is that the bill of exchange is not only stamped. The third contention is that the plaintiffs have already filed another suit against the drawers of the said bill of exchange and the said suit includes the present claim under the bill. Their further contention is that the said bill of exchange was drawn at New Delhi and that the defendants' Proprietor affixed his signature on the said bill in New Delhi. The said bill of exchange was not payable at Bombay nor was it discounted at Bombay and, therefore, no part of the cause of action has arisen in Bombay. The defendants, therefore, submit that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

4. The defendants also contend that the said drawers, namely, Messrs Chemie Flora Ltd. has assured the defendants that they alone would be responsible for payment of the amount of the bill of exchange on or before the due date and that, therefore, the defendants are not liable to pay the said amount. According to them, the said drawers had given certain assurances said amount. According to them, the said drawers had given certain assurances and the defendants affixed their signature on the said bill of exchange on the strength of those assurances. They also submit that the said bill of exchange the strength of those assurances. They also submit that the said bill of exchange was without any consideration and that the plaintiffs knew about these facts. They refer to a letter dated 16th May 1987, which is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply as Exhibit 1, in which they say that they had sent two demand drafts to the said Messrs Chemie Flora Ltd. who, in turn, had assured that the amount would be paid to the plaintiffs.

5. The main argument centres round the question of claim of interest. The argument is that till recently the law had permitted, under section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date the same ought to have been paid by the party charged. The law was amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, whereby the rate of interest has been raised to 18 percent per annum and the said amendment came into force on 30th December, 1988. Mr. Nain, appearing for the defendants, therefore, submitted that the plaintiffs could not have claimed interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum, inasmuch as, in the present case, the hundi was of 12th March, 1987 and the due date was 10th June, 1987 much before the said amendment to the law came into force, and that therefore, the plaintiffs could not have claimed interest at any rate above 6 percent per annum. Mr. Nain submitted that since at the date of the execution of the bill of exchange, the instrument did not mention any rate of interest, it could be presumed that the obligation to pay interest was only at the rate of 6 percent per annum as per the law as it stood then. His argument is that if in the meanwhile befo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document