M/s. Sunrise Sales Corporation vs M/s. Poorna Developers

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The appeal coming on for admission, it is noticed that the respondent has been served and remains unrepresented. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

The appeal is admitted to file. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,58,602/- in respect of the price towards supply of goods. The suit was contested and ultimately, the court found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 3,26,038/-, however, rejected the claim towards interest on the said sum. It was the finding by the court below that there was no recital in the invoices regarding payment of interest and therefore, has rejected the prayer insofar as it related to payment of interest on the principal amount.

The learned counsel for the appellant would straightaway point out and seeks to produce a specimen of the invoices which are at Exhibits P4 to P11 to indicate that the invoices did contain the terms of sale and there was a specific clause pertaining to overdue interest at 24% per annum. This has been completely overlooked by the court below and even if there was no such clause, the learned counsel would contend that the law permits payment of interest, since it is a commercial transaction and in terms of Section 34 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as ''the CPC'', for brevity), he would yet be entitled to interest at 18% and this was a prayer made, which the court below has rejected, which results in a miscarriage of justice. When the court has found that the plaintiff was due to be paid towards the sale, it was not reasonable for the court below to have rejected the claim for interest in a commercial transaction, even if there was no such agreement for payment of interest. The argument of the learned counsel is well-founded. Since there is no representation by the respondent, it would be unnecessary to postpone the hearing to a future date, since in the opinion of this court, the appellant was certainly entitled to interest on the amount, in terms of Section 34 of the CPC. Even if the invoices are to be ignored which specify interest at the rate of 24% per annum, the appellant would be entitled to interest at 18% per annum on the decretal amount.

Accordingly, the appellant is held entitled to Rs. 3,26,038/-, with interest at 18% per annum, from the date of the suit, till the date of payment.