AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 236 wordsG.C. Garg, J.—After hearing learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the findings of fact on merits recorded by the courts below. However, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have erred in granting interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the decretal amount from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. u/s 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interest could be granted on the principal amount at a rate which the court deemed reasonable. Interest can further be granted not exceeding 6% on the principal amount adjudged from the date of decree till realisation. The courts below have, however, granted interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. This could not be done. u/s 34 C.P.C. as already noticed, interest could not be granted at a rate higher than 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation, the present being not a case of commercial transaction.
In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with a modification in the judgment and decree of the courts below only to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled to future interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 10% as granted by the courts, on the principal sum adjudged from the date of decree till realisation.
