Sri T Ramachandra Reddy vs Sri Murthy Gowder on 12 March, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri T Ramachandra Reddy vs Sri Murthy Gowder on 12 March, 2010

/Tn [*3 RSA FILEB U/S 100 OF cm AGAINST'-..4_ T§_iE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE DT. 31.10.2006 4§A;<3»S'E-.*:>VVT. my RA.N0.74/200:; ON THE FILE G33' T1113 AD}Z}L.i3I::'§T'E2ICT_A~.V JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, RARTLY ALLOWING '*2-'g::Ei,;:a.1>:3EA1,T_¢ ' FILED AGAINST T1113 JUDGEMENT ;'Ar:b--AJ'.';V.DEc5_;12gE_ ' DT.13.G6.20o:5 PASSED IN OS.N{);;1/2Q{)%~} 0::-Txzlz'-E1V1,E'QFf THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.{)N.) cHALLA.KE_RE:'; This RSA Cﬁﬂlliilg 01} fir' tlié 'V court delivered the f(>}1<::awing:~ _ .

-_}__'_"§_1._xD GME N 1' ........................_u« ...~.------ ._ Though this matter is peséteri fo--r..ak33i15L$§-sion with the €:0}.1S€£1t i)f1€3;'i1f:%1. Vﬁ-ou1;isf:1g0£.::':13a§"?l§.{'§$i11£_$;".fit is heard ﬁrxaﬁy.

2. 'fhe d%3fé;@_:3ag§tI:as{Lpf§fe1'1é::d this appeal by czliallenging tha J:1c1Ag::;f.:<é:;: jzaéassed in Q.SgNa.1/2604 {iated :3.a.,:>:a0:s a{;:;é.._:R.A.é¢e.'*z4jé605 passed am 31.10.2005.

3. .="j§:1¢v33§s':£«»fa:%ts for the iiisposai cf this appeal art:

"ﬁié;;€--. t}1s¥3_V4i'r&$»g:k;-5:1de51t/ p}ah1ﬂﬁ hail fiitd original suit Seeking ::*:s<::§::*~.=~é:;:'5rV it-ffa 0f Rs.95,2T»355r/-- with casts and iﬂfﬂiﬁﬁi at j fhttz 44i*a§;e7 .{;f "§..':.i">€f«i; 33.3: from 111% date Of suit {E33 ﬁilﬁ date cf x V' ,i*£::ei}3-;a*ti§.é':1 from the defeiidant. Tha saiii suit was dmrecd iii

-- 3&1 ﬁﬁitﬁiit 0%' Rs.Z3G,0{E/~ being the princiga}. sum '%é:%iti1 irztérest at 32% £3.21 {mm the date 0f advan-ix: iii} the:

fﬁiiag 0f the 311?: and at 6% 53.3 from the date cf suit till i J,/'..» interfsst at 12%» pa. and hamce ﬂiﬁéi" passed by the first appellatﬁ court be mvemed 'ﬂy upholrziijlg thf: <:>11:i&r -uf the trial court.

6. Par contra, it is Submitted an behalf u that in the instant case a ;)1'iv:e£t¢ ti*a2siSacti0:e}_}"'~s§:év.:a.

entered into bﬂtwtéﬂ the hve'p_t3'1*${)11s éinii 3.1153 Tifafc§ 0f..iﬁ.*;;é1"est=. agmﬁd to by the appcilarit was gym. .'II0x§¢ve;f.} the ﬁrs':

agxpeﬂate court has aWz?::3d¢d«._ 015333; 'éiﬁmte of 2%.. p.111 Wiiicii vV1iéS 'mega by respondent. Tllerefore, ﬂZ1€i'f': iv§ ;1£:»_ m&1'it*«'iﬂ. which dues got raist aﬂy aub-sta11'{§a'1L"q1;c:s;tio:1é.'~.;:$f"}2iisi am} 1161166 thé appeal may hf:

_____ u'"i'". the counsel on bout}: skies, the Grxly pcrint «V ﬂ1at"a§§§&s.ibr my consﬁezmtion is as to whether the rats: of V' V,i£1té:r§stvi¥:hic}3 has beﬁii pmscriheati in the Ewan trax1sa<::tion £3 . §f;€:s§o11 is hit by Secﬁoix 23 6f the Iitzsslian Canttact fiift aad V' "ﬂag sama is 110: éiﬁgmﬁahie.

8. Fmm ihﬂ §3}at&ria1 an ltﬁﬁiﬁ, ii: is mat in é£$p11i:ra that ?}";i;f.{'E was 3 }.:}:a;.1 tmrzsacﬁoza. §I)€{'WE:@.t£'1 fhe paiﬁﬁs aixﬁ that E Q//'.

CI «.3 the Judgmﬁrrt and Decree passﬁd by '€316: trial 001111; has been accepteé by the: appeliant with regard to the p1*iac£péJ. s:;m. I}€3Wc':Vt'~:f, it is only with regarcl to the rate of hatérefsi _ was prescribed by the order cf the ﬁrst ap_pf:B§:§:teVV , tlae appellant has a gri&v3.L1c<~:. I11; iS '_{A:1'€i:, Cf1;iI1{ﬁf2"ﬁ1%_i§3}l'V appeziiant that in View caf they-3: _t}eh3g'---a::>:£';~:ssivev~":411cI i1s1i1ri{:-'s.1s ' *' rate of izltexitsi pm:s(:1*ibed in "ban tfanﬁaéﬁofg ﬁle said claimaz of tlie premisszjﬁ... b'é:"éﬁ§fm*ced and thereforﬁ, the high rate of.iV11fé£'t§si been fixed by 'me ﬁrst appftiig'-ﬁe':-scoxift Sapplicahle ':0 the facts (sf £113 ;$I';3se}ii*:; case.'

9. ,2: a:'£c=:i:is§g:v;1 (sf the Apex Court in C€iTit.i'a1 Gf'!.11di2i"3_ éasé fefenred :0 supra, it is seen that the ;~'at:-:_ of i11"§";f.!';'€é:§'C' vsvézz in the ea'.-iiﬁ cut' a privatri: traasaotiexi * has 5;; 51%;; iE2~i;¢rms $9131 dirmtives and cirrzulars issued to a whim} has tn be tmated as a standard for ﬂfA1£i44_:§§1iJ:.'.§";'i?1$Aé..' czlecidiag whc't.§1er the said ram is excesazivae, usurii31:,:_:é~ 01* opgosaci to pubiic p~;31i:}a IE-awever, it is 1:0 ha izsﬁﬁéii that ii': the instant cam $316 rate cf interest is ' ;;%z*é:scz*ibe::1 in 3 i31"£")i}ii53§£}I37 ﬁﬁiﬁ mid tmﬁer Se<;:'ti0n '?9 of tint Eﬁlegtstiaiﬁf: Instnmzeztxts Aét, Wlxﬂa ea spéciﬂﬁd mic is éxpmssiy £It1&£1€ payable £3 :3: §m:m:tis3<3i'y 1101: {if 8 bill -3f Fa, ha'?! 1;

einicliiaﬂgé, than thﬂ same 'wctauld holsti good unti} tin":

rﬁalizatien and iHti3i'€St at the speciﬁed rate shall haw to: be caleulatéd. But m:1d&r Section 89 9f the Act, no i1";tm~¢:~;s'£ is spec-iﬁed in an instxunzent, n<3tvc2*it115te3.1.:'i_i:f1'_g- a;:i§'._ agmement mlatiiig to intxerest betvveaszx a£13rH__1J a:;£it:'sf %tl1e V' iustrumﬁtnt can be calculated at ﬁfxjrn at 'Which the: same ought to ba paid by;";11:::;' réalizatioiz. Keeping in a11i11d"*vL1;1aie, (i§.Cti1i"1}V 'c2f_"'t1tLé: §1ipi'&me VV Court in the: case 1*v3fem3g_1 to siiprzéi' aS"--we11 as§"ﬁ3e" afaresaid pmvisioias of the NEg0i§Zi§$1€'ACt particularly S€cti(:s§i'8'{) it 18%; can be the rat»: of ii1tﬁ1*€:§i_ﬂé3;3i1ﬁ_ ":§J3..ag1*eem€:nt to the izontrary in 3113? msmﬁméilt, E the cﬁnskiemd View that the §~xnd '.}:}'€C.E."_.E,_€?' :::f the ﬁrst appellair: C0"E.1£'t has to 336 ' ' "{§1\_f"; rah": of in'{ﬁrest has to be at 18%; p.21 insteaati €'.s*i;.';'V"5?€; by the ﬁrst appellate court from the éafé g}f"trE§:isa€:tio;1 tiil thﬁ dam sf suit. Thﬁt rate of intemm:

" .. %iic:3s:":s_fjeei".:I,N by thé trial cam": far me period subseqnezit to the 3u'i':A shall mrsxain undisturbed. ' V' "18. '£'}";e§:efo.re, 110 siihsiauﬁai question: of law arises aiﬂwugii, the judgment and ilecree caf {Em trig} couxt is ﬁn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court