RSA No.1330 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1330 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 13, 2011 M/s Dharam Udyog and others ….Appellants Versus The Managing Director, UHBVNL and others. ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Aftab Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants. **** SABINA, J.(ORAL) Plaintiffs-appellants had filed the suit for challenging the penalty of ` 7,53,596/- imposed on them. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Yamunangar vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008. The defendants were directed to reimburse the amount of penalty to the plaintiffs along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its deposit till payment. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants as well as plaintiffs filed appeals. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed being time barred by Addl. District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari, whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiffs claiming higher rate of interest was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. -1- RSA No.1330 of 2010 The dispute involved in this case is only qua rate of interest. Hence, the facts of the case are not necessary to be reproduced. The trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs had ordered that the plaintiffs be reimbursed the amount of penalty deposited by them along with simple interest @ 6% per annum. The said rate of interest was upheld by the learned Addl. District Judge. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: “34. Interes? (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, ( with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum) from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit : [Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation I.In this sub-section, "nationalised bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies -2- RSA No.1330 of 2010 (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II.?For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.] (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie.” Thus, as per the above provision the Court can allow such rate of interest as it deems reasonable and not exceeding 6% per annum on such principal sum from the date of the decree till the date of payment. In the present case, the trial Court had exercised the judicial discretion vested in it. The respondents are doing public service by supplying electrify to the consumers. In these circumstances, the discretion exercised by the Courts below does not call for any interference as the same have been exercised judiciously. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. 13.01.2011 (SABINA) vcgarg JUDGE -3-