High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Haryana And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 31 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 31 July, 2009
RSA No. 3526 of 2008                                      (1)

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                        RSA No. 3526 of 2008
                                        Date of Decision: 31.7.2009


State of Haryana and another                              ......Appellants

             Versus

Suresh Kumar                                          .......Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present: Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional AG, Haryana,
for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).

The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the

judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby

the suit of the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the

defendants from recovering an amount of Rs.66,925/- was dismissed.

However, it was ordered that the the plaintiff-Contractor shall be liable to

pay interest @ 9% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.56,405/- from the date

of the passing of the order i.e., 24.9.1994.

The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the

appellants is that since in the agreement, interest @ 24% p.a. was stipulated,

therefore, the rate lower than that is not proper exercise of discretion by the

learned first Appellate Court.

RSA No. 3526 of 2008 (2)

The learned first Appellate Court has found that interest @

24% p.a. is not only excessive, but also penal. After returning such finding,

interest @ 9% p.a., has been awarded.

The discretion exercised by the learned first Appellate Court,

cannot be said to be unfair or unjustified, which may give rise to any

substantial question of law in the present second appeal.

Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
31-07-2009
ds