fa899.89 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 1989 M/s Ganesh Ice Factory Sangamner A Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, through its partner Harikisan Ramvilas Kasat age about 43 years, occ. trade r/o Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar .. APPELLANT VERSUS The Manager Sangamner Taluka Co-operative Milk Society Ltd., Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar .. RESPONDENT Mr. A.H. Kasliwal, advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.L. Kute, advocate holding for Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for respondent. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 16 th JUNE, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff being aggrieved by part of the final order and decree passed by Jt. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Ahmednagar on 16-4-1987 to the extent of payment of interest. fa899.89 2 2 Plaintiff instituted suit claiming recovery of amount of Rs. 78093=60 p towards the charges in respect of purchase of ice from the plaintiff by defendant as well as interest accrued on the amount due. According to plaintiff, he had supplied ice to respondent / co-operative society valued at Rs. 50,993.60 p. The amount was due to be paid in the month of July 1981. However, same had not been paid by the co-operative society. As such, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. Plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 15-4-1981 till the date of presentation of the suit which comes to Rs. 27,000/-. Trial court, on consideration of evidence lead by the parties, accepted the case put up by plaintiff and granted decree for recovery of Rs. 50,993=60 p. Trial court, however, awarded interest at th rate of 6% per annum and claims that it ought to have been awarded at the rate of 18% pr annum. 3 I have perused the judgment and order passed by the trial court. Trial court has observed that infact there was no written agreement in respect of supply of ice. There was also no agreement regarding payment of interest on the amount receivable by the plaintiff. Trial court taking recourse to provisions of Interest Act, awarded 6% per annum interest on the amount due, while passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff. In my opinion, there fa899.89 3 is no inconsistency or illegality in the order passed by the trial court in respect of grant of interest. Defendant also presented appeal controverting the decree passed by the trial court in respect of recovery of amount of Rs.50,993=60 p towards the charges of ice supplied. However, at the request of defendant, leave has been granted to withdraw the appeal. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, I am of the view that the order passed by the trial court in respect of award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum is legal and proper and in consonance with the provisions of Interest Act. Appeal does not call for any interference. Appeal is devoid of substance hence stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb