M/S Binfo Electronics (P) Ltd vs S Suresh S/O Late G R S Iyengar on 8 December, 2010

.w._ANfi:¥A

H€THEIflC%iCOURT(M7KARNATAKAJUTBANGAUDRE

DATED THIS THE BTU DAY OF DECEMBER 20

BEFORE

THEHONBUEMRAflEflCESUBH&§iB@fiflA'z 

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO;  1'069/_ Vv  V'

BETWEEN:
1. M/S. BINFO BLBcTB._OjN_1Ac s (53;   _
2. R. K. MANJUNATH     «

BOTH PREsB1§$T1,T'1*.VR/A,_ No.19  " 
MARUTHI (;1.ROLI'B, 143.751 MAIN2' A
HANUNIANTHANAGARA-.'O_A A' "  
BAN'OAJD,OB.B;::;T9 -» 

BOTH "REP. BYTHE PRE)S}:3NT DIRECTOR
SR1  GURUP_I{'XS.AE)..__  

 ' . .  "  ...APPELLANTS
(BY SR1 T. B; E_{IRAi\I KUMAR, ADV.) T

 LATE. 1O,j1"OTI\II3'EI\I';:*.L'I--

HEREIN BY ERTITLING HIM TO RECOVER?x~SUM"'~C)FAl{S:."  

1,'7'5.958/W TOGETHER WITH 
RATE OF 18% RA. ON Rs.I°;38';958/J'-EROM "
APPELLANTS HEREIN JOINITIAQARD-I. SiIVER_Ai;LY_,_FROM . *

THE DATE OE SUIT TILL REALISATION.

THIS RFA IS COIVi£1§i=G_C:NE_':Q'ii"1iEIXRiNG ON IA. THIS

DAY. THE COURT IVIAIDEHTHE EOLjLOwII\Ir;:g:..'--';~

 .iSV  against the judgment

and Vdecree"~I.i1fI' QIS.N'O.V1*~SV27I/2001 dated 6/I/2005 On

Of. City Civii Judge, Bangalore.

  referred as per their ranking in the

triai COL: r€_;}  '

K,

x   Suit; is One for recovery Of Sum of RS.2,OZ,200/--

  with Costs and interest at the rate of 249/9 p.a.

%\..x»3

M

,,-v..



'.;J

3. The case of the plaintiff is that. he is the
proprietor of M / s. interface and he is dealing in Telecom

81 Grade Connectors and Sockets. Defendants beixjfgthve

customers, for the purpose of their business,"ipurchased: *

goods from the plaintiff on .:e1*ed.it  if

28/4/1997 to 24/3/ 1998 to thelbftulief of 

ps. Defendant made paymen:tL'''of> '' V

1/9/1997' to 24/4/1999.  an"-amfount of
Rs.1,53,158/-- was due"  'thiis;:'re§a:rd.,LVtpiaintiff made a

demand on  Dei'eridants,fv by letters dt.

4/10/rji'§é9i'ae_d .confirrned the outstanding

balance' 'a_r{iour1tV_.of:'Rs'§  58 / --. However. defendants

failed -to setVt1e"tI'1e arnoiinti. as such, plaintiff issued a

  and  a suit for 'recovery.

  against the claim of the plaintiff, the

defendva'nt.s on appearance filed written statement
"if that they have purchased the goods from the

  piaintiiif. I~Iowever they contended that they have made

%xe1 we



the payment. as per the ledger account. m_aintai.ned by

them and plaintiff had agreed to delay the ]'€C(J?'v't].Vc=l7;\'%V'Of

balance of Rs.80,359.37 ps. However, for  .
best known to the plaintiff, he ha»s.._presentedfv 0"
Claiming exorbitant amouiitl"-0 " 

Defendants have made  .pay1nei;ts""._:between * 0

1/4/2000 to 31/8/2000  'san1e'ha*.ze..ri0t been
accounted by the plaintiff. vlnot. entitled for
interest at  0 is a solvent
company  'Rs.2 Crores. They
0t'fere<;l H        plaintiff amicably.
Howeveifitihe  waiting for the same has

filed; the A ' ~ 

  _  basis of these pleadings; the trial Court

.f'1*ar;;1Aedv  fdlvlowing issues:
 '«;_Wi1et.her plaintiff proves that the defendant
 is due of a sum 0fRs.l,53,158/-- during the
period from 1 /9/ 1997 to 24 / 9 / 1999'?



{2} Whether the defendants prove that only a
sum of Rs.80,359.37 ps. is due to t.he'*,
plaintiff'?  '~

{3} Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovlerl W" 
interest. at the rate of 240/o p.a., on__the'd.ue
amount'?   ' "   l

(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that _ it  
entitled to recovera.4suIn'of"Rs.2,0iZ.,20O/ "
together with futlure interest at the "of:
24% per annuni fronistlhe defend'arit.s from
the date of suit till ivts---re"a.lis»ation?'  

[5] What order orll'deere€?%l::'

6.   &tl1_elJxp1ainvtli'lff; ».piaintiff himself got
examined   Exs.P1 to P65. On
behalf'._of'--defelndantsll"defendant No. I filed an affidavit

of one of't«the.D'1recAtor_loy way of examination in chief.

  pi'odti'eed____Exs.D1 to D9. The trial Court on

 ' .._of the material on record, held that the

 '.h.asi1'vlproved his claim for Rs.1,53,l58/~ and

 furthelr'g_held that the defendants have failed to prove

 that. the balance amount was only Rs.80,359.3'7 ps.

  'With regard to the interest, the trial Co'urt held that the

_.¢,;-5. .2,



 w  an_d5i:hEereby  tr__i_a

gt',-)\g
plaintiff is entitled to 18% interest per annum and
accordingly decreed the suit partly. It is against this
judgment and decree, defendants have filed this
7. Learned Counsel appearing for  H
submitted that there is no contract '_  of;
interest at the rate of 18%  
pendency of the suit, since   1
passed by the trial,  an
amount of Rs.1,53, 158/19}  amount, on

3 1 / 7 / 2003 and'«T:.VtE1e said   been withdrawn

by  and is deposited in the
bank. Th§.3.¢ddlr.as' no't._be:e'n accounted by the trrglal Court

3.Court has imposed interest on the

 'pri'11cjip.;il'~an1:oL1nt. He also submitted that the interest

awarded .or1 the 1'1i.gher side. Since there is no

 contract; for payment of interest, a reasonable interest

1' should have been awarded. %'c'/E'

c"'ur



8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing
for the plaintiff submitted that winding up 
were initiated against the 
existence of defendant~compan§r  Ru
Further he did not dispute t.he:b'1:?1e}::.<AoVsivt of 
31/ 7 / 2003 and Wit.hd'rav\rVa1*v:.t:'L:t31'"b   on " it
21/3/2005. He also  i's"a'~eon§1mereia1
transaction and the VA   be at the
commercial   Court has

imposed reasoriah1e-- interes't..on1uy,  V

 'tn "submissions made by the

learned  _fo1-.'_t'h:e'_;;iarties, the point that arise for

 Cofmyideration _____ 

   the judgment and decree of the

 ._   is required to be interffied on the

amount of interest awarded in the laint?"

10. it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has made

i  the supply of the goods to the defendants. Defendants

%£L

-¢-t'



have also not disputed the receipt. of goods. '1' he defence
taken by the defendant is that, balance amount is___only

Rs.80,359.37 ps. To evidence the same, t:her'ei.r:is._:'no

material produced by the defendants,  *

supply made and the amount due l.byi_:thC_V if

documents produced by the plaintii"fi..A_suchll

& delivery notes at Exs.lP'l,""t.o P41, 'ledgef~.;vl'a"c:count "

extract at EXs.P42V rto P/pL5';' =fprofit_ & ililoss/Eaccount
statement at Ex.P46, bal.a11ce:fa_t.:l$:§§.P47, relevant

entry at   report at Ex.P48.

 in  These documents
not only prove'  goods, but the amount due

from' -the dlefeindantl corresponding ledger entries

 also   entries have been made during the

course-.V business. To negative the same. no

material'1-sdproduced by the defendants and during the

 course*'of evidence, defendants have not disputed the

".sa'n1'e. As such, the trial Court has rightly come to a

i if "conclusion that: the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of a



-9- 3'

sum of Rs._1,"/5,958/W together with future interest of
18% pa. on baianoe amount of Rs.1,38.958/~» from___the

defendants.

11. However. the question is  

interest. The tenor of the vvritten Msltater_nent.« 

the defendants have not sei9ioti'sl_$/ 

transaction. They also sought:amieablel_settlefiientand
it is alleged that before  isllsettled, the
plaintiff has rushed tov_~AA./lfnllthe course of

business,  thlerewill 'beT's.ome.l:delay in payment

or some aeeouritiiage1'f'o19';"--- T hat should not come in the

Way of btisinlessli*elation_ship between the parties. When

 V.  pa]"Cl.§3S: __a"re adin'it.t:.i.1_1_gj»'the liability and having been found

  is entitled for the amount, I find that

feasoI1abl.ei'j_if2terest could be awarded instead of 18%.

 Aoooiidilngly I pass the following order:

The appeal is partly allowed. Plaintiff is

E entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on



-- !('}~

Rs.1,38,958/~. The amount deposited by the

defendants on 31/7/2003 and withdrawn 

plaintiff on 21/3/2005 along with iz1t.eresi,:    i '

adjusted towards decreetal arfiount."_¢  

deducting the amount depo:§it_e"d_,fVxiilieiugjmvgi. 

accrued interest, the  
amount at the . rgite '/of afcaicufilated.
Accordingly the  stands
modified. A o f  V

In of of this appeai,
 airnvenvdment of the appeal,
doee'  and the same

stands dwismissfedf

sai-5
Eudqe

.