SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 1713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, P. RAJAMANICKAM, JJ.
Renganathan - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Saravana Store, Rep. by its Partner T. Ellappan, Chennai - Respondents
O.S.A. No. 31 of 2018 & CMP. No. 1852 of 2018
Decided On : 10-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.S. Krishnan, V.J. Latha, Yogesh Kannadasan.
For the Respondent: K. Azhaguraman.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 34 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 , 14 , 52 - Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act - Article 115 - Banking Companies Act - 45 (O) - Partnership Firm - Demanding payment - Decreed - Plaintiff is a registered Partnership Firm and it is carrying on business as provisions and General Merchants - Defendant is doing business in line of catering and defendant is having running account with plaintiff for purchase of provisions and general items for his business - During course of business, defendant had purchased provision items from plaintiff for supplying same to canteen Petroleum Corporation Limited on various dates and in respect of which, a sum is due and payable by defendant to plaintiff as per the bills and accounts maintained by plaintiff - Defendant has received said notice and sent a reply through his counsel with false averments - Defendant is liable to pay aforesaid amount with interest at rate of 24% per annum - So, on date of filing of suit, principal with interest would come Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay said amount with interest at rate of 24% per annum till date of realization with costs –Held, It was also held that in this regard, Courts of law can take judicial notice of both inflation as also fall in bank rate of interest - Court can take judicial notice about rate of interest charged by nationalised banks - Therefore, this Court is of view that awarding of 9% interest per annum from date of amount due would meet ends of justice - Honble Supreme Court in paragraph No.41 has held that principal sum adjudged would be sum actually loaned plus amount of interest on periodical rests which according to contract between parties or established banking practice has stood capitalised - In this case as already pointed out that there is no contract for payment of interest - As per aforesaid decision where there is a contract between parties for payment of interest on periodical rests, then interest can be capitalised - But in this case, there was no contract at all for payment of interest - Court hold that plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at rate of 9% p.a., for principal amount till date of decree - Since it is a commercial transaction, Court are of view that plaintiff is entitled to get further interest on same rate for period from date of decree till date of realisation - In result, this appeal is partly allowed - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

JUDGMENT :

P. Rajamanickam, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in C.S.No.162 of 2010 dated 17.02.2017.

2. The respondent herein has filed a suit in C.S.No.162 of 2010 for recovery of Rs.28,15,390/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, from the date of plaint till the date of realisation of the said amount and for cost. The learned Single Judge by the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 has decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.28,15,390/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of the decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realisation with costs. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described in C.S.No.162 of 2010.

4. The averments made in the plaint are, in brief, as follows:-

The plaintiff is a registered Partnership Firm and it is carrying on business as provisions and General Merchants. The defendant is doing business in the line of catering and the defendant is having running account with the plaintiff for the purchase of provisions and general items for his business. During the course of business, the defendant had purchased provision items from the plaintiff for supplying the same to the canteen at Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited on various dates and in respect of which, a sum of Rs.17,16,702/- is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as per the bills and the accounts maintained by the plaintiff. The last sale was made on 31.05.2007 for a sum of Rs.4880/-. Inspite of repeated requests and demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant has failed and neglected to make payments. Hence, on 10.07.2008, the plaintiff has sent a legal notice demanding payment. The defendant has received the said notice and sent a reply through his counsel on 27.07.2008 with false averments. The defendant is liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.17,16,702/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 31.05.2007. So, on the date of filing of the suit, the principal with interest would come to Rs.28,15,390/-. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.28,15,390/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of realization with costs.

5. The averments made in the written statement are in brief as follows:-

The suit has been filed for recovery of money alleged to be due in respect of the provisions continuously supplied to the defendant. It does not say the date on which such supply commenced. In fact, the defendant was clearing the bill as and when it was supplied either by way of cash or cheque and had never had a running account. As per the statement of account filed by the plaintiff, the transaction had commenced from 01.04.2006. But there is no explanation from the plaintiff for making claim after a period of 4 years and there was no demand at all. Since the plaintiff was receiving the amount regularly, it did not make any demand. The defendant states that the canteen which was run in Chennai Petroleum Corporation has been closed in may 2007 and at the time of closing itself, the amounts which were pending were settled. Since the defendant stopped buying for any of his branches from the plaintiff, the plaintiff has come with a fake claim. The defendant has sent a suitable reply on 27.07.2008 denying the allegations made in the notice which was sent by the plaintiff dated 10.7.2008. The defendant is not liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum., since no such contract was entered into. Therefore, the defendant prayed to dismiss the above suit.

6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Judge has framed necessary issues and tried the suit. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one of the partners, vi

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top