Full Text
20th December, 2010 M/S SIEMENS LTD. & ORS ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Hemant Malhotra, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Sharad Malhotra, Advocate.
Through: Mr. J.P.Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. H.S.Bullar, Mr. Saurabh Kumar and Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.4.1998 whereby the respondent/plaintiff’s suit for recovery was decreed on account of charges due from the appellant for shipping of 2010:DHC:6148 consignments.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly argued only two points in support of his appeal. The first argument was that the suit was barred by limitation as the account was not an open mutual current account under Article 1 of the Limitation Act,1963. The second argument was that the rate of interest claimed and awarded was at an exorbitant rate of 24% p.a. till the date of filing of the suit and even pendente lite and future interest is at 18% per annum, both of which rates of interest considering the present interest regime ought to be much lower.
3. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, I note that the three bills for which payments are claimed by the respondent/plaintiff are dated 19.8.1993 (Ex.PW1/16), 30.8.1993(Ex.PW1/17) and 4.10.1993 (Ex.PW 1/18). The suit has been filed on 19.8.1996. In terms of Section 12(1) of Limitation Act, 1963 in computing the period of limitation for a suit, the date from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. When we exclude 19.8.1993, the limitation will commence on 20.8.1993 and the suit could have been filed till 19.8.1996. The suit has in fact been filed on 19.8.1996. The subsequent bills are in fact dated 30.8.1993 and 4.10.1993 which are well within limitation. The argument of limitation is therefore devoid of merits and is rejected.
4. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, I completely agree with the counsel for the appellant. Considering the consistent fall in rates of interest and the present interest regime, as also various judgments of the Supreme Court granting reduced rates of interest, I feel that in the facts and circumstances, the interest on the principal amount due being Rs.1,84,093/should be 14% per annum simple. Therefore, partly modifying the judgment and decree, interest is granted till the date of filing of the suit, pendente lite and future interest till realization at 14% per annum. Interest will be payable from the respective dates of the bills. I note that the appellant had deposited the decretal amount in this court and in view of the modification of the judgment and decree, amount will in fact be repayable to the appellant by the respondent. The counsel for the respondent agrees that the amount to be refunded, will be paid back within a period of two months from today and on repaying the same, the security furnished by the respondent will stand discharged and it is agreed between the parties that the decree will accordingly stand satisfied.
5. The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly, being partly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial court record be sent back. CM No. 482/1999 Since the appeal has been disposed of, this application is not pressed and is disposed of as such.
DECEMBER 20, 2010 VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J ib