{"id":204024,"date":"2008-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-12T23:11:24","modified_gmt":"2018-05-12T17:41:24","slug":"shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal … vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal … vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, D.B.Bhosale<\/div>\n
                              -1-\n\n\n\n\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                         FIRST APPEAL NO.961     OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal Somani,\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Adult, Occ. Business,\n    residing at :156, 1\/B Mangalwar Peth,\n    Pune-411 001.                       ..               Appellant.\n\n                    Vs\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n    Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah,\n    Adult, Occ.Business,\n    Residing at :157, Camp,\n    Pune-411 001.                               ..       Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    Mr A.V.Anturkar, for the appellant.\n                           \n    Mr Anil Dhavale, for the respondent.\n\n\n                 CORAM :   B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                 DATE :    19\/09\/2008\n\n\n    JUDGMENT:      (Per D.B.Bhosale,J.)\n      \n\n\n    1.       This    appeal    is directed against the judgment                 and\n   \n\n\n\n    order    dated 15.5.2003 rendered by the learned Joint civil\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No.347<\/p>\n
    of    1988 instituted by the respondent-plaintiff.                 The suit<\/p>\n
    was    for    recovery of an amount of Rs.12,64,000\/-                against<\/p>\n
    the appellant-defendant along with interest at the rate of<\/p>\n
    24    per    cent    per annum.    By the impugned       judgment,          the<\/p>\n
    defendant      is directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs.12                  lacs<\/p>\n
    together      with    interest    at the rate of 15 per           cent      per<\/p>\n
    annum    from    the date of the suit till realization of                   the<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
    entire    amount      and    also    directed    to       pay       Rs.20,931.50<\/p>\n
    towards      interest       for    the     period      from       3.12.1997          to<\/p>\n
    23.8.1998, that is, the period prior to institution of the<\/p>\n
    suit.\n<\/p>\n
    2.       Basic      facts of the suit are not in dispute.                       As     a<\/p>\n
    matter    of    fact,      Mr Anturkar, learned           counsel         for      the<\/p>\n
    appellant-defendant, submitted that he has instructions to<\/p>\n
    confine    challenge        in    the    appeal only to           the     rate       of<\/p>\n
    interest,      awarded by the trial Court and seek 9 per                         cent<\/p>\n
    per   annum interest on the amount of Rs.12 lacs only                            from<\/p>\n
    the   date     of    the
\n                             ig suit till realization             of     the      entire<\/p>\n
    amount.      In     view    thereof, we do not propose to                   make       a<\/p>\n
    detailed reference to the facts.\n<\/p>\n
    3.       Briefly      stated,      the    plaintiff is          a    trader        and<\/p>\n
    businessman.         He knew the defendant and he claims that he<\/p>\n
    had   extended financial aid to him from time to time.                               On<\/p>\n
    30.11.1997,       the   defendant once again had approached                        the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff      with a request to give a loan of Rs.                      12     lacs.\n<\/p>\n
    The   plaintiff       did    pay this amount to the               defendant          on<\/p>\n
    30.11.1997      in cash.      The defendant had promised to return<\/p>\n
    the     said    amount      on     3.12.1997.        The      defendant            had<\/p>\n
    accordingly       issued     a    cheque     bearing        No.050646           dated<\/p>\n
    3.12.1997      of    Rs.12    lacs drawn on Mahesh              Sahakari         Bank<\/p>\n
    Ltd..    The amount was not paid as promised, the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
    thereafter,        had presented the said cheque for                encashment<\/p>\n
    and    since      it was bounced he has filed a complaint                    under<\/p>\n
    section      138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.                   Since the<\/p>\n
    defendant did not make payment of the aforesaid amount the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff        instituted the instant suit for recovery of the<\/p>\n
    amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
    4.         The    trial Court has decreed the suit holding                    that<\/p>\n
    the plaintiff has brought sufficient evidence on record to<\/p>\n
    prove      that he had paid Rs 12 lacs to the defendant by way<\/p>\n
    of    loan on 30.11.1997 and that the defendant had promised<\/p>\n
    to<\/p>\n
          pay the said amount on or before 3.12.1997 by                      issuing<\/p>\n
    post-dated         cheque.       The   defence    propounded           by       the<\/p>\n
    defendant        that    the   aforesaid    amount was         paid      by     the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff for the purchase of shares has not been accepted<\/p>\n
    by the trial Court.            Insofar as the claim towards interest<\/p>\n
    on    the    amount      of Rs.12 lacs for the period             before        and<\/p>\n
    after the suit, the trial Court has granted it at the rate<\/p>\n
    of    15    per cent per annum.         The trial Court         has      further<\/p>\n
    held    that      the plaintiff is entitled to get              interest          of<\/p>\n
    Rs.40,931.50        for the period from 3.12.1997 to                23.2.1998,<\/p>\n
    that    is,      for the period prior to the suit.                Admittedly,<\/p>\n
    the    defendant        had paid Rs.20,000\/- to the plaintiff                   and<\/p>\n
    hence      the    Court    has directed the defendant to               pay      the<\/p>\n
    balance of Rs.20,931.50 only.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                  -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
    5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
    only    on    the rate of interest awarded by the trial                         court<\/p>\n
    which, according to Mr Anturkar, was much higher than what<\/p>\n
    the    plaintiff        is    entitled     in     law.      He     invited         our<\/p>\n
    attention        to    Section 34 of the Code of            Civil        Procedure<\/p>\n
    (for    short, “CPC”) and submitted that since there was                             no<\/p>\n
    agreement        for the payment of interest between the parties<\/p>\n
    and    that      the    amount      was not     received      for      commercial<\/p>\n
    purpose, the Court below was wrong in awarding interest at<\/p>\n
    the    rate of 15 per cent per annum.               He submitted that the<\/p>\n
    facts    of the case clearly show that the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
    entitled      for<\/p>\n
                           any interest and he was supposed to                    return<\/p>\n
    only    Rs.12 lacs and, therefore, the cheque of that amount<\/p>\n
    only    was      issued.      He submitted that the trial Court                    has<\/p>\n
    committed an error of law in awarding interest at the rate<\/p>\n
    of    15%    per annum from the date the amount was paid                         till<\/p>\n
    the    date of the suit.            He submitted, in the absence of an<\/p>\n
    agreement        for    payment of interest the defendant was                      not<\/p>\n
    liable      to    pay the interest for the period prior                     to     the<\/p>\n
    suit.       He    then submitted that even awarding interest                         at<\/p>\n
    the rate more than 6 per cent from the date of decree till<\/p>\n
    the    payment        thereof      was   also wrong      and      illegal.           He<\/p>\n
    submitted        that    insofar as the rate of interest                  for      the<\/p>\n
    period      from the date of the suit till the date of                        decree<\/p>\n
    at    the    rate of 15% cannot be sustained in law since                          the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff        has miserably failed to prove that the loan was<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
    obtained for commercial purpose.         He submitted that it was<\/p>\n
    a    simple transaction of personal loan and it did not have<\/p>\n
    a colour of commercial transaction.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                                                \n    6.      The   question    that   falls   for     our      consideration\n\n    centers   around     section 34 of CPC, and hence it would                   be\n\n    advantageous    to    re-produce the said section            for      better\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    appreciation    of    the contentions urged on behalf               of     the\n\n    defendant.    Section 34 reads thus:\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                         \n<\/pre>\n
            “34. Interest -(1) Where and in so far as a decree
\n            is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the<\/p>\n
            decree, order interest at such rate as the Court
\n            deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum
\n            adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of
\n            the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on
\n            such principal sum for any period prior to the
\n            institution of the suit, with further interest at<\/p>\n
            such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as
\n            the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum,<\/p>\n
            from the date of the decree to the date of payment,
\n            or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:\n<\/p>\n
            Provided that where the liability in relation to
\n            the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial<\/p>\n
            transaction, the rate of such further interest may
\n            exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed
\n            the contractual rate of interest or where there is
\n            no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are
\n            lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation
\n            to commercial transactions.\n<\/p>\n
            Explanation I.- In this sub-section, “nationalised
\n            bank” mean a corresponding new bank as defined in
\n            the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
\n            Undertakings) act, 1970 (5 of 1970).\n<\/p>\n
            Explanation     II.- For the purposes of this section,<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
             a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is
\n             connected with the industry, trade or business of
\n             the party incurring the liability.\n<\/p>\n
             (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to<\/p>\n
             the payment of further interest on such principal
\n             sum from the date of the decree to the date of
\n             payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be<\/p>\n
             deemed to have refused      such interest, and a
\n             separate suit therefor shall not lie.”\n<\/p>\n
    7.       A    mere    perusal of Section 34 shows that it                    deals<\/p>\n
    with    the question of interest in three stages.                     First is,<\/p>\n
    interest      for    the period prior to the institution of                     the<\/p>\n
    suit,    the second stage is, interest on the principal                         sum<\/p>\n
    adjudged<\/p>\n
    date     of
\n                  from<\/p>\n
                   decree,<\/p>\n
                          the date of institution of suit<\/p>\n
                                at    such   rate    as    the      Court
\n                                                                          till      the<\/p>\n
                                                                                 deems<\/p>\n
    reasonable,        and    the third stage is, further interest                    on<\/p>\n
    the    principal      sum adjudged from the date of               the      decree<\/p>\n
    till realization of the decretal amount or to such earlier<\/p>\n
    date as the Court thinks fit at a rate not exceeding 6 per<\/p>\n
    cent    per annum.        The section does not refer to payment of<\/p>\n
    interest      for    the period prior to the institution of                     the<\/p>\n
    suit    on the “principal sum adjudged”.              It applies only to<\/p>\n
    additional interest on the principal sum adjudged from the<\/p>\n
    date    of    suit    to    the date of    the    decree        and      further<\/p>\n
    interest      from    the    date    of the decree to          the     date       of<\/p>\n
    payment.       A    plain reading of this section show                 that       an<\/p>\n
    interest on the principal amount adjudged from the date of<\/p>\n
    decree    to    the      date    of payment in any       case       cannot        be<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
    allowed      at    a    rate higher than six per            cent       per      annum<\/p>\n
    unless    the liability in relation to the sum adjudged                            had<\/p>\n
    arisen out of commercial transaction as provided for under<\/p>\n
    the    first      proviso      to section 34.       In short,          about       the<\/p>\n
    first    stage, section 34 does not say anything while about<\/p>\n
    the    second stage it says that the interest to be                         awarded<\/p>\n
    shall be as considered reasonable by the Court.                          About the<\/p>\n
    third    stage,        that    is,    from the   date       of     decree        till<\/p>\n
    realization,        the power of the Court to award interest                         is<\/p>\n
    circumscribed,          that    is,    it cannot be more than               6%     per<\/p>\n
    annum.       This      is settled by the Supreme Court                 in     Ramnik<\/p>\n
    Vallabhdas Madhvani Vs.
\n                             ig          Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani (2004)<\/p>\n
    1 SCC 497.<\/p>\n
\n                           \n    8.       The      Supreme Court had an occasion to consider                        the\n\n    meaning      of phrases \"the principal sum adjudged\" and \"such\n      \n\n\n    principal      sum\" occurring in section 34 of CPC in                        Central\n   \n\n\n\n    Bank    of   India      Vs.     Ravindra and ors, (2002)               1    Supreme\n\n    Court    Cases      367.\n                        367        In this case, the Supreme               Court       has\n\n\n\n\n\n    observed      that      \"if the amount of interest is paid,                     there\n\n    will    be    no    occasion      for    capitalising         the      amount        of\n\n    interest      and      converting      it    into    principal.             If     the\n\n\n\n\n\n    interest      is not paid on the date due, from that date                          the\n\n    creditor      is    deprived of such use of the money                    which       it\n\n    would    have      made    if the debtor had paid             the      amount        of\n\n    interest      on    the    date      due.   The creditor          needs       to     be\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>\n                              -8-<\/span>\n\n\n\n    compensated      for    such    deprivation\".        The      Supreme         Court\n\n    further      held    that    the    expression     \"the       principal          sum\n\n    adjudged\"      may    include the amount of interest charged                       on\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n    periodical      rests, and capitalised with the principal                        sum\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n<\/pre>\n
    actually advanced, so as to become an amalgam of principal<\/p>\n
    in    such    cases where it is permissible or obligatory                        for<\/p>\n
    the    court    to hold so.        Where the principal sum              (on      the<\/p>\n
    date    of    suit)    has been so adjudged, the same                  shall       be<\/p>\n
    treated as “principal sum”.\n<\/p>\n
    9.       In    the present case, perusal of the pleadings                        and<\/p>\n
    the oral evidence show that there was no agreement between<\/p>\n
    the    parties for the payment of interest at fixed rate                           on<\/p>\n
    the    principal      sum    actually      advanced.        The      plaintiff,<\/p>\n
    therefore, is not entitled to claim interest on the amount<\/p>\n
    of    Rs.12,64,000\/-        since    Rs.64000\/- were          added       to     the<\/p>\n
    actual sum advanced by way of interest at the rate of 24 %<\/p>\n
    per    annum    from    the date of payment to the date                   of     the<\/p>\n
    suit.     Section      34 does not refer to payment of                  interest<\/p>\n
    for    the    period prior to the institution of suit                     on     the<\/p>\n
    principal      sum adjudged.        The principal sum, according                   to<\/p>\n
    the    plaintiff, of Rs.12,64,000\/- cannot be treated as the<\/p>\n
    “principal      sum    adjudged”      on    the    date       of     the      suit.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,      the    plaintiff would be entitled for                  interest<\/p>\n
    only    on the principal amount actually advanced, i.e.                          Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    12,00000\/-.         We find support for the view in the decision<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                 -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
    of     the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs The West Punjab<\/p>\n
    Factories      Ltd,     AIR 1966 SC 395, wherein,               while       dealing<\/p>\n
    with    the    contention that no             interest could be             awarded<\/p>\n
    for    the    period before the suit on the amount of                       damages<\/p>\n
    decreed,      it was observed that in the absence of any usage<\/p>\n
    or    contract,      express or implied, or of any provision                         of<\/p>\n
    law    to justify the award of interest, it is not                        possible<\/p>\n
    to     award      interest        by    way    of    damages.             In       the<\/p>\n
    circumstances,        the    Supreme Court held that               no     interest<\/p>\n
    could    be awarded for the period upto the date of the suit<\/p>\n
    and    the decretal amount in the two suits will have to                             be<\/p>\n
    reduced      by   the<\/p>\n
                             amount of such         interest        awarded.           For<\/p>\n
    taking    such     view the Supreme Court also placed                     reliance<\/p>\n
    upon its Judgment in Union of India Vs.                   Watkins and Mayor<\/p>\n
    Co,    AIR    1966    SC 275.          The Supreme Court in          that       case,<\/p>\n
    while    dealing      with a case under the Interest Act,                       1939,<\/p>\n
    had    observed that interest may be awarded for the                          period<\/p>\n
    prior    to the date of the institution of the suit if there<\/p>\n
    is    an agreement for the payment of interest at fixed rate<\/p>\n
    or if interest is payable by the usage of trade having the<\/p>\n
    force    of law, or under the provisions of any                      substantive<\/p>\n
    law.\n<\/p>\n
    10.      It    is now well settled that in matter of grant                           of<\/p>\n
    interest      under     this section, the Court             has      discretion,<\/p>\n
    even    not    to grant the interest and it is not limited                           to<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
    the    rate    of    interest.       In other words,          the      grant       of<\/p>\n
    interest under section 34 is a matter of discretion and is<\/p>\n
    to    be    exercised on the facts and circumstances                    of     each<\/p>\n
    case more particularly where there is no agreement for the<\/p>\n
    payment      of    interest.       Scrutiny    of Section          34     of     CPC<\/p>\n
    indicates      guidelines for exercise of such discretion.                         It<\/p>\n
    shows      that    grant of interest at contract rate should                       be<\/p>\n
    the    normal rule, the use of discretion to refuse interest<\/p>\n
    or    reduce the agreed rate being the exception.                      To reduce<\/p>\n
    or    deny interest would amount to penalising the                      creditor<\/p>\n
    for    approaching        the Court and encouraging the debtor                     to<\/p>\n
    deliberately<\/p>\n
                        prolong    the    litigation.       In      short,        where<\/p>\n
    there      is no agreement for the payment of interest between<\/p>\n
    the    parties, the Court is expected to use the                     discretion<\/p>\n
    and    in    such    cases Courts are guided by             the      provisions<\/p>\n
    contained      in section 34 of CPC.          Undoubtedly, the              courts<\/p>\n
    are    expected      to    bear    in mind that      the      discretion           is<\/p>\n
    required to be exercised on sound judicial principals.\n<\/p>\n
    11.        Thus, it is clear that in the absence of any agreed<\/p>\n
    rate    of    interest,      the    Court     will     have      to     use      its<\/p>\n
    discretion        keeping    in view the provisions             contained          in<\/p>\n
    Section      34 of CPC so also the facts and circumstances                         of<\/p>\n
    each    case and the nature of transaction.                 If prima          facie<\/p>\n
    the    nature      of transaction does not disclose it to                     be     a<\/p>\n
    commercial        transaction, it would not be proper for                     Court<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
    to    award    any    interest      paid by   nationalised           Banks       in<\/p>\n
    relation to commercial transaction for the period from the<\/p>\n
    date    of suit to the date of decree.           In the present case,<\/p>\n
    the trial Court has observed that the monies were paid for<\/p>\n
    the    purpose      of business and awarded 15%           interest          right<\/p>\n
    from the date of payment till the date of realization.                           We<\/p>\n
    do not find the material either in the form of document or<\/p>\n
    oral    evidence in support thereof.           In other words,              there<\/p>\n
    is    nothing on record to suggest that the payment of                       loan<\/p>\n
    was    given    for      industry,    trade    or    business         of       the<\/p>\n
    defendant.         In fact, issuance of the cheque of the                   exact<\/p>\n
    amount      which<\/p>\n
                         was borrowed by the defendant itself is                     an<\/p>\n
    indicator      that the transaction was not commercial.                     There<\/p>\n
    was    nothing      in    writing    between the     two.        In     defence<\/p>\n
    defendant      has set out a case that the amount was paid                       to<\/p>\n
    him for purchase of shares.\n<\/p>\n
    12.      On perusal of the pleadings and the evidence of the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff we have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
    has    failed      to prove that payment of the monies                was      for<\/p>\n
    business, trade or industry.            Explanation-II makes it very<\/p>\n
    clear    that a transaction is “commercial transaction” only<\/p>\n
    if    it is connected with the industry, trade and                    business<\/p>\n
    of    the party incurring liability.           The plaintiff            neither<\/p>\n
    in    his    plaint      nor in his evidence has stated              for     what<\/p>\n
    purpose      the    amount was advanced.       He has       simply        stated<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
    that the amount of Rs.12 lacs was paid to the defendant on<\/p>\n
    his    request      to give a loan and since he was knowing                         the<\/p>\n
    defendant      he had paid that amount to him.                   The      plaintiff<\/p>\n
    has    further      stated that the defendant had                  received         the<\/p>\n
    said    amount      and    had    promised to return             on     or     before<\/p>\n
    3.12.1997.       The defendant had also issued a cheque of the<\/p>\n
    said    sum    and no interest was added to while issuing                           the<\/p>\n
    cheque.       He has not stated either in the pleadings or                            in<\/p>\n
    his    evidence the purpose of seeking loan from him.                             Thus<\/p>\n
    the evidence and the pleadings of the plaintiff are silent<\/p>\n
    as    to the nature of transaction.                The plaintiff is not                 a<\/p>\n
    money    lender      or
\n                           ig  a    financial        institution.           He     is     an<\/p>\n
    individual      who    claims that even on earlier occasions                          he<\/p>\n
    had    paid loan to the defendant.                In the circumstances                it<\/p>\n
    would    not be possible for us to hold that the transaction<\/p>\n
    was    commercial      transaction.           In our opinion, it               was      a<\/p>\n
    simple    personal        loan    paid      by     the    plaintiff          to     the<\/p>\n
    defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    13.      The    trial Court was wrong in awarding interest                            at<\/p>\n
    the    rate    of    15    per    cent       per    annum      from       the     date<\/p>\n
    (30.11.1997) of payment till the realisation of the entire<\/p>\n
    amount.    In the absence of an agreement for the payment of<\/p>\n
    interest      and    material to show that the               transaction            was<\/p>\n
    commercial      transaction,          the    Court    ought        not     to     have<\/p>\n
    granted    commercial          rate    of    interest      which        was      being<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                             -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
    charged      by   nationalised    Banks   at    the      relevant          time.\n<\/p>\n
    Moreover, there was no material on record to show that the<\/p>\n
    rate    of interest prevailing at the relevant time was 15%.\n<\/p>\n
    Similarly,        awarding 15 per cent rate of interest from the<\/p>\n
    date    of    decree   to   the date of    realization            cannot        be<\/p>\n
    sustained in law.       In the facts of the present case, under<\/p>\n
    Section 34 of CPC, for the period from the date of payment<\/p>\n
    till    the    institution     of the suit the plaintiff               is     not<\/p>\n
    entitled      for any interest and from the date of the decree<\/p>\n
    till    realization     of the entire amount, the plaintiff                     is<\/p>\n
    entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
    14.      In    the   circumstances,    this       appeal        is       partly<\/p>\n
    allowed.       The defendant is not liable to pay interest for<\/p>\n
    the    period from the date of borrowing the monies till the<\/p>\n
    date    of institution of the suit.        The defendant shall pay<\/p>\n
    the    interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the<\/p>\n
    date    of the decree till realization of the entire amount,<\/p>\n
    and    insofar as the period from the date of institution of<\/p>\n
    the    suit till the date of decree the defendant shall                       pay<\/p>\n
    the    interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum.                      Decree<\/p>\n
    be drawn up accordingly.         No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                         -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
    (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)          (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)<\/p>\n
                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span>
\n                              -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                 HIGH COURT<\/p>\n
                             APPELLATE SIDE<\/p>\n
                       FIRST APPEAL NO.961 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                              Date of Judgment:\n<\/p>\n
                                              19TH SEPTEMBER,2008.\n<\/p>\n
    For approval and signature<\/p>\n
    THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.H.MARLAPALLE.\n<\/p>\n
    THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.B.BHOSALE.\n<\/p>\n
    1.   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
\n         allowed to see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n
    2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n<\/p>\n
    3.   Whether Their Lordships wish to see the<\/p>\n
         fair copy of the Judgment?\n<\/p>\n
    4.   Whether this case involves a substantial
\n         question of law as to the interpretation
\n         of the Constitution of India, 1950 or<\/p>\n
         any Order made thereunder?\n<\/p>\n
    5.   Whether it is to be circulated
\n         to the Civil Judges?\n<\/p>\n
    6.   Whether the case involves an important<\/p>\n
         question of law and whether a copy of
\n         the judgment should be sent to Nagpur
\n         Aurangabad or Goa offices?\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:32 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal … vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008 Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, D.B.Bhosale -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.961 OF 2003 Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal Somani, Adult, Occ. Business, residing at :156, 1\/B Mangalwar Peth, Pune-411 001. .. Appellant. Vs […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Badrinarayan Bansilal ... vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal ... vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-12T17:41:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal … vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-12T17:41:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2988,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal ... vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-12T17:41:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal … vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal ... vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal ... vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-12T17:41:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal … vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-12T17:41:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008"},"wordCount":2988,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008","name":"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal ... vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-12T17:41:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-badrinarayan-bansilal-vs-shri-vinodkumar-k-shah-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal … vs Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah on 19 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204024"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204024\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}