APHC010806422015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT NO: 876/2015 Between: 1. WIRELESS TT INFO SERVICES LTD.,, REP. BY ITS NATIONAL HEAD, VIOM TOWERS, PLOT NO.I4A, SECTOR-18, MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, GURGAON - 122 015. 2. WIRELESS TT INFO SERVICES LTD.,, REP. BY ITS CIRCLE HEAD, A.P.STATE, GOWRA PLAZA, 1-8-304- 307/308/444, 4TH FLOOR, SARDAR PATEL ROAD, BEGUMPET, SECUNDERABAD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS "VIOM NETWORKS LIMITED" BY VIRTUE OF FRESH CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION CONSEQUENT UPON CHANGE OF NAME, DATED 10-08-2010) ...APPELLANT(S) AND RADHA KRISHNA CIVIL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, Rep. by its proprietor Maganti Kiran, S/o.Ramakrishna Prasad, Hindu, 36 years, Business, T-3, Shivashakt; Enclave, Pragathi Marg, JN Road, Rajahmundry, ...RESPONDENT to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned IXth ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : WEST GODAVARI : AT KOWUR in 0.S.No.14/2013 dt.12-08-2015 by dismissing the suit against these appellants/defendants and allowing the appeal in the interest of justice by awarding costs throughout and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(ASMP 2525 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit Sri A.R.Subba Rao, Manager-Legal to represent in the above appeal on behalf of the petitioner/appellant company in the interest of justice and equity and to pass 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2015(ASMP 2589 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.14/2013 on the file of the learned IX Additional district judge : west godavari : at kovvur dt.12.08.2015 including execution proceedings if any as well as all the consequential proceedings arising pursuant to the said decree and judgment IA NO: 1 OF 2016(ASMP 1274 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim stay granted in ASMP No.2589/2015 in AS No.876/2015 dated 14.12.2015 Counsel for the Appellant(S): GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent: N SIVA REDDY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT No.876 of 2015 JUDGMENT: This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.14 of 2013 dated 12.08.2015 on the file of the Court of learned IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur. 3 2. The defendants, before the Trial Court, are the appellants herein. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. 3. The respondent herein instituted the suit against the appellants for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,53,587/- with interest @ 18% per annum and for costs. 4. Before adverting the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the Trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court. 6. The case of the plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows: i). Since 2008, in and around East Godavari District, the plaintiff Company has been doing Civil and Electrical works for the defendant No.2, which is under the control of defendant No.1. On 12.12.2009, the defendant No.2, entrusted the 4 work to the plaintiff at Malakapalli site in West Godavari District to carryout civil and electrical works for the defendant No.2. ii). While the work was in progress, the staff of the defendant No.2 visited the spot and prepared RFI Check list dated 25.01.2010 and furnished a copy of the same to the plaintiff. At that time, the staff of the defendant No.2 signed the measurement sheets specifying the works carried by the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff completed the works, the amount payable by the defendants is Rs.7,53,668/- and submitted invoice along with the measurement sheets. iii). One A.Ravi Kumar, who is the Cluster Manager of the defendant No.2 received the same, verified the calculations, corrected the same and arrived at an amount of Rs.7,49,813/- as due amount. Then the plaintiff requested the 5 defendant No.2 to pay said amount. Even after repeated demands through phone and emails, the defendant No.2 not paid the same and postponed the payment. iv). On 14.06.2012, the plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendant No.2 for payment of the due amount, the same was received by the defendant No.2, but failed to pay the amount. There is a practice prevailing in the market to pay interest @18% per annum on the due amount and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to the interest @ 18% per annum from 16.02.2010. As the defendant No.2 is under the control of the defendant No.1, both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount. 7. The defendant No.1 denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as follows: 6 The plaintiff did not complete the work entrusted by the defendants as per contract and within the time stipulated; that the check list filed by the plaintiff is not correct and the amount payable by the defendant No.1 is only Rs.6,75,015 and the defendant No.1 is always ready to pay the said amount, also obtained cheques for the amount payable to the plaintiff; that there is no practice of paying interest in between plaintiff and defendants, therefore, there is no question of payment of interest, thereby, prays to dismiss the suit with costs. 8. On these pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following issues for trial: “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the disputed suit claim with interest as claimed in the plaint? and 2.To what relief?” 7 9. At the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, its proprietor was examined as P.W.1 and got marked EXs.A.1 to A.9 in support of its contentions. On behalf of the defendants, its Manager, Circle legal head, was examined as D.W.1 without exhibiting any documentary evidence. 10. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff proved his claim and is entitled to recover the suit amount, after deducting the amounts paid by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, with subsequent interest @ 18% per annum on the principle due amount of Rs.7,49,813 from 14.12.2013 to till realization and the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the balance principal amount after deducting the amount paid by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, thus, decreed the suit with costs. 11. It is against this decree and judgment, the appellants/defendants preferred this appeal. 8 12. Heard Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendants is that the rate of interest claimed and awarded by the Trial Court is nothing but erroneous in the absence of any written contract between the parties to that effect; that the burden of proof is always vested with the plaintiff that there is a practice of paying interest @ 18% per annum or the rate of interest allowed by nationalized banks at the relevant point of time, but the same is not discharged by the plaintiff in any manner; that since the defendants have already paid the amount, the question of payment of any interest on the balance principal amount does not arise, thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contends that even there is no contract regarding the interest, when it is a commercial transaction, the interest can 9 be granted by the Court @ 18% per annum on the due amount as allowed by the Nationalized Bank on deposits, thereby, the Trial Court rightly decreed the suit with the said rate of interest, which requires no interference of this Court by way of this appeal, thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal with costs. 15. It is against this backdrop, the only point that arises for determination need consideration now; “whether the Trial Court erred in granting interest @ 18% per annum on the due amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiff?” 16. POINT: It is an undisputed fact that the work entrusted to the plaintiff by the defendants was completed within the time stipulated. Thereby, in view of the testimony of witnesses before the Trial Court, the defendants have to pay the amount due to the plaintiff. Furthermore, it is crystal clear that, during the pendency of the suit, the defendants paid an 10 amount of Rs.4,01,662/- and Rs.3,48,151/- under two cheques to the plaintiff. 17. The only dispute is with regard to the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court by relying upon a pronouncement of this Court in Sri Sinivasa Co., v. Firm Vitta Dodda Hanumanthappa Anjayya Setti1, categorically held that since the transaction between the parties is a commercial transaction, when there is no contract regarding payment of interest or the rate of interest, in view of the Proviso to Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Codes enables the Court to award interest at the current rate allowed by the Nationalized Banks on deposits, thereby, granted interest @ 18% per annum prior to filing the suit as well during the pendency of the suit and till realization. 18. However, in the same judgment it was also held that “The claimant for interest must however adduce acceptable evidence as to the current rate of interest allowable by such 1 AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 21 11 banks at the relevant time. In the absence of such evidence the Court has a discretion to allow a reasonable rate of interest”. Admittedly, in the present case on hand, no material was produced before the Trial Court to prove their claim with regard to the rate of interest. Thereby, to appreciate the same, this Court being first Appellate Court has every discretion to allow a reasonable rate of interest to the plaintiff. 19. Furthermore, it is more relevant to mention the certain observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary/General Manager, Chennai Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd. v. S.Kamalaveni Sundaram2, which are as follows: “11. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) empowers the Court to award interest for the period from the date of the suit to the date of the decree and from the date of the decree to the date of payment where the decree is for payment of money. Section 34 of 2 2011 (2) ALD 91 (SC) 12 the CPC does not empower the Court to award pre-suit interest. The pre-suit interest would ordinarily depend on the contract (express or implied) between the parties or some statutory provisions or the mercantile usage…….” 11. Admittedly, as stated supra, the transaction between the parties is a commercial transaction, thereby, in view of the nature of transaction as well by considering the delay in realizing the payment even though the plaintiff completed the work within the time stipulated, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount due prior to filing of the suit, however, reduced the same from 18% to 12% from the date of suit i.e., 14.02.2013 till realization on the principal due amount of Rs.7,49,813/-. As stated supra, during the pendency of the suit the defendants paid the amounts, thereby, now it is made clear that as per the finding arrived by the Trial Court the plaintiff is entitled for the 13 subsequent interest on the balance principal amount due if any. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 12. It is needless to mention that the other findings recorded by the Trial Court do not require any interference by this Court. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the decree and judgment, dated 12.08.2015 passed in O.S.No.14 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, regarding the rate of interest entitled by the plaintiff from the date of suit till realization only, consequently, directed the defendants to pay the interest @ 12%, instead of @ 18%, from the date of suit i.e., 14.02.2013 till realization on the principal due amount of Rs.7,49,813/-. The other findings as well directions given by the Trial Court in the judgment remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs. 14 Interim orders granted earlier, if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 05.01.2026 Krs 15 297 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT No.876 of 2015 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 05.01.2026 Krs