Delhi High Court
S.K. Malhotra (Huf) vs Man Mohan Modi on 6 November, 2009
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 53/1997
Date of decision : 06.11.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :
S.K. MALHOTRA (HUF) ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
versus
MAN MOHAN MODI ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes.
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 18.12.1996 rendered in a summary suit for recovery of Rs.1,76,085/- filed by the appellant against the respondent under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- with proportionate costs and future interest payable @ 12% per annum against the respondent.
RFA No. 53/1997 Page 1 of 4
2. The appellant, who appears in person, states that he is aggrieved by the impugned judgment limited to non-grant of pendentelite interest claimed by him @ 18% per annum. The suit is based on a claim of the appellant that in the year 1982, he had advanced a loan of Rs.1,17,000/- to the respondent. As the loan advanced was not repaid by the respondent, the appellant was compelled to institute a suit against him in the trial court. Though the respondent entered appearance and contested the suit by filing a written statement, thereafter, he stopped appearing and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.10.1996. The suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the appellant on 18.12.1996. The appellant submits that apart from future interest, he was also entitled to grant of pendente lite interest on the sum of Rs.1,17,000/-, particularly since the respondent continued to enjoy the principal amount till the decree was passed. He further states that in the year 1997, the decretal amount was recovered by him in the execution proceedings.
3. The summary suit was instituted by the appellant against the respondent in September 1985. In the relief clause, the appellant prayed for a decree of Rs.1,76,085/- against the respondent alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit, till the date of the decree and actual realization of the amount. However, while passing the impugned judgment in RFA No. 53/1997 Page 2 of 4 favour of the appellant, the trial court decreed the suit for Rs.1,17,000/- with proportionate costs and future interest @ 12% per annum against the respondent, without granting any interest for the period w.e.f. 1982 till the date of institution of the suit, i.e., September 1985 and without granting any pendente lite interest. Between the date of institution of the suit, i.e., September 1985 to the date of the impugned judgment, i.e. 18.12.1996, over 11 years had passed.
4. In the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Others Vs. G.C.Roy reported as AIR 1992 SC 732, the Supreme Court held that a person is entitled to the payment of interest on the principal amount and the security deposit illegally retained, on the ground that the person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled, has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. Even in the present case, it cannot be disputed that the appellant was deprived of the use of the money to which he was legitimately entitled and thus he had a right to be compensated for the period of deprivation at least from the date of institution of the suit till the date of passing of the decree.
5. This Court is therefore of the opinion that in the present case, the appellant is entitled to pendent lite interest on the decretal amount of Rs.1,17,000/-, apart from future interest already granted RFA No. 53/1997 Page 3 of 4 under the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.1996. However, the rate of interest as claimed by the appellant, i.e., 18% per annum is declined being on the higher side. Having regard to the then existing rate of interest in commercial transactions and the rate of interest charged by the nationalized banks in such transactions at the relevant time, the appellant is held entitled to pendente lite interest @ 10% per annum on a sum of Rs.1,17,000/-.
6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The Registry is directed to prepare a modified decree, in terms of the aforesaid order. The trial court record be released forthwith.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 06, 2009 JUDGE
rkb
RFA No. 53/1997 Page 4 of 4