2014 Supreme(Mad) 4515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.R. Shivakumar, J.
Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Limited - Appellants
Vs.
Vibromech Engineers & Services Limited - Respondent
A.S. No. 859 of 2003
Decided On: 23.12.2014

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXIX Rule2 – Recovery of Amount – Unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 261/2001 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge (FTC No. 1), Coimbatore is the appellant in the first appeal. – The appellant filed the said suit against the respondent/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,81,009.74 with litigation cost based on the following averments. – On the order of the respondent/defendant company, the appellant/plaintiff company supplied castings to the tune of Rs. 13,79,735.44. – The cost of said castings supplied as per the trade custom, would carry an interest at the rate of 21.75% in case the cost of the goods supplied was not paid within the credit time. – In accordance with the accounts maintained by the appellant/plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 14,95,899.24 (consisting of Rs. 13,79,735.44 towards principal and Rs. 1,16,163.80 towards interest) was due from the respondent/defendant as on 30.06.1996. – When demanded, the respondent/defendant informed the appellant/plaintiff through fax that they would pay the amount within three months. – A reply was sent through fax informing the respondent/defendant that their request could not be accepted, as a huge sum was due from the respondent/defendant and the creditors of the appellant/plaintiff were also pressurising for payment. – A demand for minimum payment of the amount due was made. – Since no reply was received from the respondent/defendant, a lawyers notice dated 02.09.1996 was issued to the respondent/defendant and the same was replied by the respondent/defendant by letter dated 14.09.1996 stating that a detailed accounts statement would be sent by them within 15 days. – Once again the appellant/plaintiff issued a rejoinder through their counsel on 17.09.1996 for which the respondent/defendant sent a reply on 15.10.1996 agreeing to pay the amount. – However, the said amount was not paid as undertaken. – Hence the appellant/plaintiff was constrained to file a company petition before the High Court, Madras, for winding up. – In the said petition an order came to be passed directing deposit of the admitted amount within three months. – On 03.07.1998, the respondent/defendant contending that only a sum of Rs. 13,38,916.21 alone was due from the company to the appellant/plaintiff filed a counter statement and subsequently produced a demand draft dated 18.1.1999 for a sum of Rs. 1,98,355.11 and yet another demand draft dated 16.03.1999 for Rs. 4,80,909.42. After such payment, a balance sum of Rs. 7,01,009.74 was due from the respondent/defendant to the appellant/plaintiff towards the principal. – Subsequently, the respondent/defendant calculated interest at the rate of 11% from 09.01.1995 to 30.06.1996, arrived at a figure Rs. 58,750/- and paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- out of it. – As on 23.03.1999, after giving credit to all the payments made by the respondent/defendant, a sum of Rs. 6,81,009.74 remained due towards the interest. Hence the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to recover the said amount with interest at the rate of 21.75% per annum. – Held, It will be clear that whatever amount was paid by the respondent/defendant, the same was appropriated towards the principal, showing the interest in a separate column for which no interest has been claimed as it would amount to claiming interest on interest. – It is pertinent to note that for a particular period alone the maximum interest of 21.75% has been applied and thereafter due to the reduction in the bank rate of interest, the interest was reduced to 20.25%, 18.87% and at last to 17.34% per annum. – The appellant/plaintiff has proved that the amount due from the respondent/defendant as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 6,81,009.74. – Appellant/plaintiff could have very well appropriated the amounts paid by the respondent/defendant first towards interest and the balance towards principal. – If such a procedure had been adopted by the appellant/plaintiff, the amount now claimed in the plaint shall be the balance amount of principal and he would also be entitled to claim interest on that amount. – However fair play is seen on the part of the appellant/plaintiff by appropriating the payments made by the respondent/defendant towards the principal alone, keeping the interest in a separate column and by claiming the interest alone in the present suit. – Trial judge, without properly appreciating the pleadings and evidence and without applying proper principles of law, has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to a decree as prayed for. – Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, comes to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. – Appeal Allowed