Karnataka High Court
Shri Deepak Melwani vs Trans Asias Biotech on 5 February, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1959 OF 2016
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL CROB No.8 OF 2017
In RFA No.1959 of 2016
BETWEEN
1. Shri. Deepak Melwani,
S/o. Late Murli Melwani,
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at: R46, Golden Enclave,
Airport Road, Bangalore-560017.
Shri Murli Melwani,
S/o. Late Tejumal Melwani,
Aged about 86 years,
Since deceased, represented by
His L.Rs. Plaintiff No.1/Appellant No.1
And Plaintiff No.2(a)/i.e.Appellant No.2
2. Smt. Sapna N. Daryanani,
W/o. Shri Niresh Daryanani,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at: R46, Golden Enclave,
Airport Road, Bangalore-560017.
Represented by her GPA holder
Shri. Deepak Melwani.
...Appellants
(By Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, Advocate)
2
AND
1. Trans Asias Biotech
"Shri Srinivasa" No.88,
1st floor, 80 feet road,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore-560070.
Represented by its Managing Partner/
Authorized Signatory
Mr Brij Mohan Vasishta
Aged about 66 years
2. Mr Brij Mohan Vasishta
S/o. Late Devaki Nandan Vasishta
Aged about 66 years,
Managing Partner/Authorized Signatory
Trans Asias Biotech
Residing at 506, Silicon Towers,
209/1, 4th Cross, Byrasandra,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560093.
3. Mr Jeetendra Kumar,
S/o. Late Nathuni Prasad Gupta
Aged about 42 years,
Partner of Trans Asias Biotech
Residing at 403, Silicon Towers,
209/1, 4th Cross, Byrasandra,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560093.
4. Mr. Md. Zulfaquar Ali,
S/o. Md. Abdul Hassan,
Aged about 43 years,
Partner of Trans Asias Biotech,
Residing at 003, Silicon Towers,
209/1, 4th Cross, Byrasandra,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560093.
...Respondents
3
(By Sri. P.Raveendran, Advocate for R1 to R4.)
This RFA is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI
Rules 1 & 2 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated
30.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.5854/2013 on the file of the
XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.28),
decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
In RFA Crob. No.8 of 2017
BETWEEN
1. Trans Asias Biotech
"Shri Srinivasa" No.88,
1st floor, 80 feet road,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore-560070.
Represented by its Managing Partner/
Authorized Signatory
Mr Brij Mohan Vasishta
Aged about 70 years
S/o. Late Devaki Nandan Vasishta
2. Shri. Brij Mohan Vasishta
S/o. Late Devaki Nandan Vasishta
Aged about 70 years,
Managing Partner/Authorized Signatory
Trans Asias Biotech
Residing at 506, Silicon Towers,
209/1, 4th Cross, Byrasandra,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560093.
3. Shri. Jeetendra Kumar,
S/o. Late Nathuni Prasad Gupta
Aged about 46 years,
Partner of Trans Asias Biotech
Residing at 403, Silicon Towers,
4
209/1, 4th Cross, Byrasandra,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560093.
4. Shri. Md. Zulfaquar Ali,
S/o. Mr. Md. Abdul Hassan,
Aged about 47 years,
Partner of Trans Asias Biotech,
Residing at 003, Silicon Towers,
209/1, 4th Cross, Byrasandra,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560093.
...Cross Objectors
(By Sri. P.Raveendran, Advocate)
AND
1. Shri. Deepak Melwani,
S/o. Late Murli Melwani,
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at: R46, Golden Enclave,
Airport Road, Bangalore-560017.
Shri Murli Melwani,
S/o. Late Tejumal Melwani,
Aged about 86 years,
Since deceased, represented by
His L.Rs. Plaintiff No.1/Appellant No.1
And Plaintiff No.2(a)/i.e.Appellant No.2
2. Smt. Sapna N. Daryanani,
W/o. Shri Niresh Daryanani,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at: R46, Golden Enclave,
Airport Road, Bangalore-560017.
Represented by her GPA holder
Shri. Deepak Melwani.
...Respondents
5
This RFA.Crob. in RFA is filed under Order 41 Rule 22
of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2016
passed in O.S.No.5854/2013 on the file of the XIV Additional
City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for recovery of
money.
The RFA and RFA Crob. coming on for hearing this
day, the Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
This appeal and cross objection arise from the judgment dated 30th August, 2016 passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5854/2013. The appeal is filed by the plaintiffs and the cross objection is by the defendants. The pleadings in a nutshell are as follows:
2. The 1st defendant is a partnership firm doing business in pharmaceuticals. The 2nd defendant is its managing partner. The 3rd and 4th defendants are other partners of the 1st defendant firm. The plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant came to know each other when they used to meet at the Ashram of Bhagawan Sri Sathya Baba at Puttaparti.
The 2nd defendant wanted money for developing the business of the 1st defendant firm. He assured the plaintiffs of good returns if they invested their money in the 1st defendant 6 firm. The plaintiffs, believing the words of 2nd defendant invested totally an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-, in instalments in between 28.06.2009 and 12.11.2010 to the 1st defendant firm. The 2nd defendant failed to keep up the promise and failed to repay the amount to the plaintiffs. Thereafter the plaintiffs lodged a complaint at Old Airport Road Police Station and also at Puttaparti Police Station. After much persuasion and demand, the 2nd defendant agreed to return the plaintiffs' investment amount of Rs.25,00,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 10% p.a. and in this regard there came into being a memorandum of understating MOU on 07.03.2013 between the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. The 4th defendant was a witness to this MOU. In this MOU the defendant No.2 acknowledged his liability of Rs.25,90,000/- and assured of repaying this amount in two instalments of Rs. 13,75,000/- and 12,15,000/-. He also issued two post dated cheques to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiff No.1 presented the 1st cheque on 30.04.2013, it was not honoured because of want of sufficient funds in the 2nd defendant's bank account. The 7 defendant No.2 sent an email on 30.04.2013 requesting the 1st plaintiff not to present the cheque as he could not arrange the funds, but by the time he received this email, the cheque had been dishonoured. Again on 23.05.2013 the plaintiff No.1 contacted defendant No.2 and demanded for repayment. At that time, the 2nd defendant instructed the plaintiffs to re-present the cheque, which was again dishonoured on re-presentation. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice and also instituted criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Parallely the plaintiffs also instituted a suit for recovering a amount of Rs.27,07,781/- which amount is inclusive of interest and other expenses. The plaintiffs also claimed interest of 10% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of payment along with damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. Initially the plaintiffs filed the summary suit under Order 37 CPC. The defendants sought leave of the court to defend the suit. Since the trial court granted unconditional leave to the defendants, the plaintiffs filed a revision petition before this court. In the revision petition, this court also 8 granted leave to defend the suit subject to depositing admitted liability of Rs.18,75,000/-.
4. In the written statement the defendants admitted that they received Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiffs, but their specific contention was that the plaintiffs themselves came forward to invest money in their partnership business without expecting any interest. The defendants also assured returning of Rs.25,00,000/- without interest. They further contended that defendant No.2 was summoned to police station on 06.03.2013 based on a complaint made by the plaintiffs. He was asked to come to the police station with a cheque book and there he was forced to issue two post dated cheques for Rs.13,75,000/- and Rs.12,15,000/-. He was also forced to sign a MOU prepared by the plaintiffs. The terms of the MOU were dictated by the plaintiffs' advocate who was also present in the police station. Thus the signature on the MOU was taken under the threat of implicating him in a criminal case. He disputes that he agreed to repay an amount of Rs.25,90,000/- with interest at 10% p.a. They stated that they had repaid an amount of 9 Rs. 6,25,000/- and the amount due by them was only 18,75,000/-. Disputing the claim of Rs. 27,07,781/- made by the plaintiffs, they stated that because of continuous harassment by the plaintiffs, they suffered heavy loss in their business. The plaintiffs have suppressed the facts. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they invested a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs with the defendants and later they have failed to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 10% p.a.?
2. Whether the defendants prove that it has repaid a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- and they are in the due only for a sum of Rs.18,75,000/-?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have obtained two post dated cheques and memorandum of understanding fraudulently under threat and coercion with the assistance of jurisdiction police?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit claim?10
5. What order or decree?"
6. During pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing the judgment with regard to admitted liability of Rs.18,75,000/-, which amount had already been deposited by the defendants pursuant to order passed by this court in CRP.100/2014.
7. The 1st plaintiff adduced oral evidence by examining himself as PW.1 and he got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.54. The 2nd defendant adduced evidence as DW-1 and produced the documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.4. The trial court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover an amount of Rs.8,32,781/- from the defendants with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of suit till realization. This amount is after excluding Rs.18,75,000/- already deposited by the defendants. The plaintiffs have preferred the RFA aggrieved by denial of interest on Rs.18,75,000/- from 12.08.2013 till 30.04.2014 i.e., the day when the 11 defendants deposited the amount. The defendants have preferred cross objection seeking modification of the decree by deducting an amount of Rs.1,17,781/- claimed by the plaintiffs under the heads pre-litigation interest, filing expenses and legal notice charges from the decreetal amount of Rs. 8,32,781/- and also restricting the interest to 6% p.a. instead of 10% as granted by the trial court.
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents on the appeal and cross objection. I have perused the documents produced by either side, the oral evidence of the witnesses and the impugned judgment.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the memorandum of understanding as per Ex.P.15 was finalized by the 2nd defendant himself admitting his liability of Rs. 25,90,000/- with interest at 10%. This figure was arrived at after giving deduction to some payments made by the 2nd defendant. This was the principal amount claimed in the plaint. Since the 2nd defendant admitted that he was 12 due in a sum of Rs.18,75,000/-, the plaintiffs made an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a judgment with regard to admitted amount. This amount had already been deposited by the 2nd defendant pursuant to direction given by this court in CRP.No.100/2014. On 30.04.2014 the deposit was made. The suit was filed on 12.08.2013. The trial court, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs should have directed the defendants to pay interest on Rs.18,75,000/- from 12.08.2013 to 30.04.2014. Denial of interest for this period is an error committed by the trial court and therefore this court should interfere in this appeal and modify decree by awarding the interest on this amount.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the amount actually due by the defendants was Rs. 18,75,000/-. This was the principal amount and this amount has been paid. There was nothing due. The MOU that the appellant refers to was obtained by the 2nd defendant in the police station putting fear of falsely implicating him in a criminal case. Considering the date of the lodging of complaint by the appellant and date of MOU, it 13 can be very well said that the 2nd defendant was forced to sign the MOU in the police station. The 2nd defendant never agreed that he was due in a sum of Rs. 25,90,000/-. This was not the principal amount. The trial court has committed an error in giving a finding that this was the amount actually due towards the principal amount and that it did not correctly adjudicate the principal amount. In support of his argument with regard to the meaning of the expression "Principal amount adjudicated", he referred to judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of UNION BANK OF INDIA vs DALPAT GAURISHANKAR UPADYAY (AIR 1992 BOMBAY 482]. His further argument was that the trial court should not have decreed for the remaining amount of Rs.8,32,781/- with interest at the rate of 10%. He submitted that this amount includes the exorbitant claim made by the plaintiffs towards filing charges and notice charges. When the trial court decreed the suit with costs, it means to say that costs include the court fee paid by the plaintiffs and other expenses met by him for instituting the suit. The trial court should have noticed that the plaintiffs 14 claim towards other expenses was unjustifiable and worth rejection. It was his another point of argument that the transaction between the plaintiffs and defendants was not commercial and therefore awarding interest at the rate of 10% was against Section 34 of CPC.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants replied that the plaintiffs/appellants did not suppress the fact that he made a complaint against the 2nd defendant in the police station. It is very well stated in the plaint. The argument of the respondents counsel that the 2nd defendant was made to sign MOU in the police station cannot be accepted. The defendants have failed to prove that aspect. The trial court has given a clear finding in this regard. Actually the 2nd defendant himself prepared two drafts of the MOU and mailed them to the plaintiffs. The MOU as per Ex.P.15 was finalized after mutual discussion. The 4th defendant is a signatory to MOU. If according to the 2nd defendant, the MOU was outcome of fraud and coercion, he should have examined the 4th defendant, who according to the 2nd 15 defendant was not present when MOU was executed. Therefore this argument is worth rejection.
12. From the above arguments the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
(1) Is the trial court justified in granting decree for recovery of Rs. 8,32,781/-?
(2) Has the trial court committed an error in not
awarding interest on amount of
Rs.18,75,000/- from date of suit till date of its deposit on 30.04.2014?
(3) Is the trial court justified in awarding interest at 10% p.a.?
(4) What order?
POINT No.1:
13. The total amount claimed by the plaintiffs is
stated in Para 33 of the plaint which is as follows:
a. Towards Principal Rs. 25,90,000/-
b. Interest From
01.05.2013 to 11.08.2013 Rs. 38,801/-
01.07.2013 to 11.08.2013 Rs. 13.980/-
c. Filing Expenses Rs. 35,000/-
d. Legal Notice Charges Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs. 27,07,781/-
16
14. In regard to principal amount of Rs.25,90,000/-
claimed by the plaintiffs, the defendants have taken serious objection and their counsel argued that Ex.P.15 produced by the plaintiffs in proof of their claim was obtained at police station. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs argued that this document was voluntarily executed by the 2nd defendant in the presence of the 4th defendant. Therefore, this point requires re-examination. Ex.P.15 is a Memorandum of Understanding dated 7th March, 2013. This is signed by Brijmohan Vashista, the 2nd defendant and Deepak Melwani, the 1st plaintiff. The 4th defendant is also one of the attestors. If this document is perused, it can be seen that the 1st party i.e., the 2nd defendant representing Asia Biotech agreed that Rs.25,90,000/- was the amount due by him towards the principal amount and that he undertook to repay the said amount with 10% interest in two instalments of Rs. 13,75,000/- and Rs. 12,15,000/-. It is also very clearly stated in clause 6 that the said MOU would supersede the earlier 5 letters issued by the 2nd defendant. Ex.P.14 shows that actually the drafts of MOU were prepared 17 by the defendants and forwarded to the plaintiffs. On going through this draft, the final MOU as per ex.P.15 appears to have come into existence. It is true that in the draft it is stated the total amount due towards principal was Rs.18,.75,000/-. But in the final MOU Ex.P.15, the principal amount due is shown as Rs.25,90,000/-. If Exs.P.14, P.15 and P.16 are read, it cannot be said that the final MOU as per Ex.P.15 was obtained by the plaintiffs by putting pressure on the 2nd defendant in the police station. The reason is that drafts of MOU were prepared and mailed on 17th December, 2012 to the email address of the 1st defendant firm, "[email protected]". This mail was again forwarded by the 1st defendant firm to another mail address "[email protected]" on 4th January, 2013. This was again forwarded to another mail address "[email protected]". Therefore the draft was first prepared on 17.12.2012 i.e., much before the plaintiff made a complaint to the police in the month of February, 2013. Then Ex.P.16 shows that on 30.04.2013 the defendants sent a mail, probably to the email address of plaintiffs' advocate 18 "[email protected]" and this was forwarded to the plaintiffs. In this mail sent by the 2nd defendant it is clearly written as below " As the process of release of Security Deposit will be possible in 3 to 4 weeks, I may request Your goodself to kindly with hold the presentation of HDFC Bank Ch.No.069490 dated 30.04.13 in the Bank for the present, to avoid the problem which will delay the things further. I may declare that there is enough money in our company Auromed Limited's account with Madras, Bombay and Delhi Stock exchanges".
15. So from this it can be said that if really the plaintiffs obtained MOU Ex.P.15 and two post dated cheques from the defendants in the police station, the 2nd defendant would not have requested the plaintiffs to withhold the presentation of cheque. Ex.P.15 bears the date 07.03.2013 and the 2nd defendant sent mail to the plaintiffs on 30.04.2013. This correspondence gives a good indication that MOU might not have obtained by the plaintiffs in the police station, rather it was a voluntary act of the 2nd defendant.
19
16. In the cross examination PW-1 admits that he made a complaint to the police on 08.02.2012. He also admitted a copy of the police complaint Ex.P.31 which was confronted to him during cross-examination. He also admitted to have made complaint again on 07.03.2013 and 04.06.2013 as per Exs.P.32 and P.33. His further admission is that the police summoned the defendant No.2 to the station on 06.03.2013. But he has denied the suggestion that the police threatened the 2nd defendant to initiate criminal action and that 2nd defendant was asked to come to the police station with a cheque book. Referring to these answers given by PW-1, the learned counsel for the respondent - cross objector argued that an inference can be drawn from these admissions that MOU was obtained under the threat of the police and therefore MOU cannot be believed. This argument is difficult to be accepted. Just because the plaintiffs made a complaint against defendant No.2 and that the latter went to police station, it cannot be said that he was forced to sign MOU and issue two cheques. The correspondence through email as referred to above 20 clearly indicate that it was the 2nd defendant who requested to withhold the presentation of the cheque on 30.04.2013. The MOU is dated 07.03.2013. If really, the 2nd defendant signed MOU in the police station under the police pressure or threat, he could have simply stated that he issued the cheque under those circumstances; rather he requested for not presenting the cheque. He himself has sent the mail. It is not the case of the defendant that even after execution of the MOU, he was asked to come to police station in the month of April also. Therefore, this stand of the defendants has to fail.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents argued another point that Rs.25,90,000/- was not the principal amount due and the actual amount due by the 2nd defendant was Rs.18,75,000/-, which amount has been paid. Regarding the expression "principal amount adjudged" found in Section 34 of CPC, learned counsel for respondents has referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Dalpath Gaurishankar Upadyay (Supra). In this case it is held by the Bombay High Court only the amount lent 21 without the addition thereto of any interest whatsoever can be treated as the principal sum adjudged. But the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs RAVINDRA AND OTHERS [(2002) 1 SCC 367] to refute the argument of the respondents counsel and to submit further that principal amount need always be the original amount claimed. In this judgment of the Supreme Court, the ratio laid down by the Bombay High Court in Union of India Vs. Dalpath Gaurishankar (supra) has been over ruled. It is clearly held in Para 44 as below:
"44. ..........................We are, therefore, of the opinion that the expression "the principal sum adjudged" may include the amount of interest, charged on periodical rests, and capitalised with the principal sum actually advanced, so as to become an amalgam of principal in such cases where it is permissible or obligatory for the Court to hold so. Where the principal sum (on the date of suit) has been so adjudged, the same shall be treated as "principal sum" for the purpose of "such principal sum" - the expression employed later in Section 34 of CPC.22
The expression "principal sum" cannot be given different meanings at different places in the language of same section, i.e. Section 34 of CPC".
18. Applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, it can be clearly said that since in the MOU, defendant No.2 under took that an amount of Rs.25,90,000/- was due towards the principal, he cannot say that the amount due was only Rs.18,75,000/-. The argument of the appellant's counsel that the principal amount found due by the defendants was Rs.25,90,000/- can be upheld.
19. It appears that the plaintiffs has claimed an amount of Rs.65,000/- towards filing expenses and legal notice charges in addition to claiming interest on an amount of Rs.25,90,000/- at the rate of 10%. In the MOU defendants agreed for paying interest at the rate of 10%. Therefore the plaintiffs are justified in claiming interest at the time of filing the suit. However their claim for Rs.65,000/- cannot be accepted. The money that they claim is very exorbitant and since the suit is decreed with costs, 23 admissible filing expenses becomes part of the costs. There is no justification to award this amount. The trial court should have noticed that Rs.65,000/- should not have been claimed by the plaintiffs and he should have given deduction. Therefore the total amount that remains is Rs.7,67,781/- and this is the amount that the plaintiffs are entitled to. Hence I answer point No.1 in holding that the trial court is not justified in granting decree for Rs.8,32,781/-.
POINT Nos.2 & 3:
20. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that in the written statement it is admitted by the defendants that amount of Rs. 18,75,000/- was due and it had been deposited by the defendants as per the directions given by this court in CRP.100/2014. This amount was adjusted as payment to the plaintiffs consequent to order passed by the plaintiffs application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court should have awarded interest on the amount of 24 Rs.18,75,000/- @ 10% p.a as has been agreed by the defendants in Ex.P15. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the transaction between the plaintiffs and defendants was not commercial and, therefore, interest more than 6% p.a. cannot be granted.
21. In Ex.P15 there is a clear recital that the second defendant agreed to pay interest @ 10% on the principal sum of Rs.25,90,000/-. Since in the written statement, it has been contended that the defendants were due in a sum of Rs.18,75,000/-, a decree to that effect in accordance with Order XII Rule 6 CPC came to be passed. The trial judge should have noticed that the second defendant deposited part of the principal amount without interest. Therefore, at the time of passing the decree after recording evidence, the trial court should have awarded interest even on this amount of Rs..18,75,000/-. With regard to rate of interest, it has to be stated that even according to Section 34 CPC the court can award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable from the date of the suit till the date of decree. As has been argued by the respondents counsel, the transaction between 25 the plaintiffs and the defendants may not be commercial, but it is to be stated that the plaintiffs were asked to invest money in the first defendant firm assuring high returns. Therefore, this is a case of investment made by the plaintiffs in the first defendant firm. In this context what is relevant to be considered is the return that the plaintiffs might have got had they invested the same money in the bank. Therefore, if the plaintiffs claim 10% interest from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree, it is not exorbitant as the defendants have agreed to pay interest at such rate. For this reason, the arguments of the respondents counsel that the plaintiffs are not entitled to interest more than 6% cannot be accepted, however the interest at 6% be restricted to post decree period. The trial court has granted interest at 10% even after the decree and to this extent the decree can be modified. Therefore, with this discussion, point Nos. 2 & 3 are answered in affirmative.
Point No. (4):-
22. From the discussions on point Nos. 1 to 3, I come to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs 26 is to be allowed and the cross-objections preferred by the respondents is to be partly allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court needs to be modified. Hence, the following order : -
(i) RFA No. 1959/2016 is allowed and the RFA Cross Objection No. 8/2017 is partly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree of the trial court is modified as below : -
(a) It is ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.7,67,781/-
from the defendants @ 10% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of its realisation.
(b) It is further ordered that the plaintiffs are entitled to interest @ 10% p.a. on Rs.18,75,000/- from 12.8.2013 to 30.4.2014.
(c) The plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the suit and the appeal.
27
(d) Costs on the cross-objections is denied.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl/sd