IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Co.Appeal.No. 51 of 2010()
1. SRI.MOIDEEN SHAH, QUEEN STUDIO,
... Petitioner
2. SMT.SULEKHA MOIDEEN SHAH,
Vs
1. THE MAYURAM CHITTIES & GENERAL FINANCE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
For Respondent :SRI.K.MONI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
Company Appeal No.51 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
This appeal is filed feeling aggrieved by the grant
of interest in judgment dated 26.5.2010 in C.C.No.15/2009 in
CP No.34 & 53 of 2002. We heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the liquidator.
2. The case of the appellants is that the learned
Single Judge has erred in granting interest from 5.3.2000 at
6 %. A review petition was filed which resulted in Annexure-I
order rejecting the review filed by the appellants.
3. According to the appellants, this is a case
where the Directors of the company were absconding and the
kuri company was closed and that it was only because the
company was not in existence, the appellants could not effect
the balance payment from the 38th instalment onwards. It is
also the case of the appellants that they could only know from
their enquiry that the head office of the company is in
Faridabad. It is the further case of the appellants that they
have not received any demand notice allegedly issued on
COA No.51/2010 -2-
2.2.2007. The date of winding up order is passed on August,
2004 and the company claim has been filed in August 2008
and it is seen numbered only in 2009. Accordingly, it is the
case of the appellants that they are not responsible for the
delay and that it happened solely due to the respondent. It
is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered
these aspects when he ordered 6% interest from 5.3.2000.
4. After having heard the learned counsel, we feel
that interest of justice would be subserved if the direction to
pay the interest is sustained, but, at the rate of 4%.
Accordingly, we modify the judgment and decree and we
direct that the appellants shall be liable to pay a sum of
Rs.1,66,465 together with interest at 4% per annum from
5.3.2000 till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from
the date of decree till the date of realisation together with
proportionate costs.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
JUDGE.
MS