( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO.507 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.507 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.507 OF 2009 IN IN IN SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO.392 OF 2003 SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO.392 OF 2003 SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO.392 OF 2003 M/s. Anchor Engineering files & Ors. ..Appellants V/s. M/s. Kwan Environmental Solution India Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondents Smt. Premlata Modani for appellants CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8th April, 2009 DATED : 8th April, 2009 DATED : 8th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The judgment dated 30th December, 2008 passed by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane is under challenge. The respondents had supplied certain machinery to the appellants in connection with the Control of the Pollution and the appellants had paid to the respondents a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs.90,000/- and interest thereon. The ( 2 ) appellants before this Court contended that the respondents had not performed their job properly and as a result of that the Pollution Control Board did not approve the work carried out by the respondents. Though such contention is raised before this Court, no material is placed before the learned Trial Judge in support of this. Hence, the stand of the appellants that the respondents had not performed their job in the proper manner, cannot be accepted. 2. It is the contention of the appellants that the respondents did not comply with the terms of the agreement. Except taking such stand at this stage, no specific material is placed before this Court to show that the respondents did not comply with their part of the contract in a particular manner. 3. If this is the position, the impugned judgment granting to the respondents the unpaid amount of Rs.90,000/- alongwith interest thereon is required to be accepted as properly decided. 4. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the rate of interest charged on the unpaid amount @18% is on the higher side. Counsel for the appellants could not produce even before this Court the agreement between the parties so as to show at what rate of ( 3 ) interest is payable. Across the bar, it was stated that no interest was payable for delayed payment. If this is the position, keeping in view the activity carried out by the respondents as a commercial activity, in my view the rate of interest @18% for the contract which was entered into sometime in the year 2001-02 cannot be termed as an excessive. 5. After having considered all points, I am inclined to observe that the impugned judgment need not be interfered. Therefore, the appeal will have to be dismissed. Hence, the following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . Appeal is dismissed. . In the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs. . In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.1603 of 2009 is dismissed as not maintainable with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)