JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHMUKH, J.:---This first appeal raises a point of interest and importance.

2. A suit was filed for the recovery of loan advanced to the defendents 1 and 2 for which the defendants 2 and 3 are the guarantors.

3. The suit of the plaintiff-bank is decreed with costs. The defendants therein are directed to pay the amount due in instalments with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent p.a. from the date of the suit.

4. Even though the suit is decreed, the plaintiff-bank aggrieved by the rate of interest as awarded at the rate of 6 per cent p.a. has filed this first appeal challenging the decree. Shree B.M. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-bank has contended that the rate of interest granted by the learned trial Judge is contrary to the provisions of section 34 of C.P.C. as the loan adavanced was for the commercial purpose and as such the rate of interest should have been to the extent of 15 per cent p.a. as demanded by the bank. On the contrary Shri Joydeep Chatterji learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the loan was granted for the professional purpose i.e. for the purpose of construction of hospital and for purchasing machinery and equipment for the hospital.

5. From the arguments advanced before us the only point which is required to be considered is : whether the plaintiff-bank is entitled for future interest at the rate more than 6 per cent. per annum?

6. There is no dispute that the loan was advanced by the bank for the purpose of construction of hospital on the agreed terms and conditions of the bank and the defendants agreed to hypothecate furnitures and other surgical equipments of the hospital towards the loan.

7. The learned trial Judge, after considering the arguments advanced before him, has found that as per the provisions of section 34, C.P.C., only in case of commercial transactions, future interest can be granted as claimed by the Bank. This professional loan cannot be said to be a loan for commercial purpose. So, the future interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum is granted.

8. Shri B.M. Agarwal, learned Counsel contended that the loan granted in favour of the defendant No. 1 was for commercial purpose and interest should have been granted at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as demanded by the plaintiff-bank. For that purpose he relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Bank of Baroda v. M/s Perchem Industries others)1, reported in 1992(3) Bombay Cases Reporter page 387

9. In that case the loan was admittedly granted for establishment of a factory and for purchase and installation of machinery. While considering the claim of the bank for recovery of the laon granted for the factory this Court rightly treated that loan was for the commercial purpose and granted the interest in excess of 6 per cent as a demanded by Bank in that case.

10. We are unable to appreciate as to how the ratio laid down in that case applies in the present case. On the basis of admitted facts the loan in that case was granted for establishment of factory and for purchase and installation of machinery. In the present case the loan is admittely granted for the purpose of construction of hospital.

11. For determining the interest it is necessary to consider the provisions of section 34, C.P.C., which reads as under:

"34. (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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document