APPLN.No.92 of 2025 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH APPLN.No.92 of 2025 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 S.Deivalingam (Deceased) 1.D.Chandra 2.D.Kalaiarasan Applicants Vs. 1.The Official Assignee, High Court, Madras. 2.Miriam Amon Respondents Prayer: Application filed under Sections 7 and 86 of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and Order II Rule 1 of Insolvency Rules, 1958, to set aside the order dated 01.04.2025 in Claim No.157 of 2024 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 passed by the first respondent/Official Assignee, High Court, Madras and direct the first respondent/Official Assignee to pay a sum of Rs.10,21,007/- to the applicants towards the claim amount as Creditor. For Applicants : Mr.A.Babu For Respondents : Ms.C.B.Meena Official Assignee for R1 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis APPLN.No.92 of 2025 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 O R D E R This Application has been filed to set aside the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Official Assignee in Claim No.157 of 2024 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 and for a direction to the Official Assignee to pay a sum of Rs.10,21,007/- to the applicants towards the claim amount as Creditors. 2. Heard Mr.A.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Ms.C.B.Meena, appearing for the first respondent. 3. The Official Assignee passed the claim order dated 01.04.2025 based on the decree that was passed by the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.1681 of 2010 dated 24.11.2010. As per the decree, the defendant had to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,16,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. That apart, the defendant must also pay a sum of Rs.40,349/- towards costs. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis APPLN.No.92 of 2025 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 4. The Official Assignee had taken this decree into consideration and has calculated the interest in the following manner:- Sl. No . Decree O.S.No. Decree Amount Principal Amount Date of plaint Date of Decree No. of days Rate of Int Interest Amount 1 1681/2010 5,16,000 3,00,000 11.02.2010 24.11.2010 286 9% 21,156 Sl. No . Decree O.S.No. Decree Amount Principal Amount Next Date of Decree Date of till realization No. of days Rate of Int Interest Amount 1 1681/2010 5,16,000 3,00,000 25.11.2010 31.03.2025 5240 6% 2,58,411 Decree Amount 5,16,000 Interest Amount 11.02.2010 to 24.11.2010 (9%) 21,156 Interest Amount 25.11.2010 to 31.03.2025 (6%) 2,58,411 Cost 40,349 Total Amount 8,35,916 5. After having calculated the interest and added the same to the decree amount and costs, a total sum of Rs.8,35,916/- was admitted as the claim made by the petitioning Creditors. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis APPLN.No.92 of 2025 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 the Official Assignee erred in calculating the interest on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, instead of the decree amount of Rs.5,16,000/-. 7. The above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is unsustainable. The sum of Rs.5,16,000/- consisted of the principal amount component of Rs.3,00,000/-. To that principal sum, the petitioning creditors have added the interest till the date of filing of the suit and had sought for a sum of Rs.5,16,000/- However, insofar as the payment of interest is concerned, the trial Court had awarded 9% interest per annum from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. This interest amount obviously has to be calculated only on the principal sum. If the interest amount is calculated on the total decree amount of Rs.5,16,000/-, which admittedly consists of interest component apart from the principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, it will tantamount to imposing interest over interest which was never contemplated by the decree. 8. In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not find 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis APPLN.No.92 of 2025 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 any ground to interfere with the claim order passed by the Official Assignee. 9. Accordingly, this Application stands dismissed. 08-09-2025 ssb Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order NCC:Yes/No 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis APPLN.No.92 of 2025 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J ssb APPLN.No.92 of 2025 in I.P.No.29 of 2012 08.09.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis