IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 AS.No. 862 of 1996() ------------------------------ OS.691/1993 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, (GENERAL EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------- VIDYARTHI MITHRAM PRESS AND BOOK DEPOT, BAKER ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNE, KOSHY P.JOHN. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.862 OF 1996 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam in O.S.No.691/1993. The plaintiff was running Vidyarthi Mithram Press and Book Depot and the Government had permitted him to supply laboratory equipments to 16 Higher Secondary Schools. Accordingly, he had supplied goods worth Rs.2,48,846/=. Thereafter as no payment was made, he gave a notice to the 3rd defendant and even addressed the Chief Minister of Kerala. On 16.3.1992 the plaintiff was paid Rs.1,24,342/=. Thereafter at the request of the Government, he again supplied materials worth Rs.49,629/=. He sent a registered notice on 24.4.1992 and no payment was forthcoming. Therefore he had instituted a suit to recover a sum of Rs.2,78,083/= wherein he had claimed interest at the rate of 24.25% with monthly rests. 2. In the written statement the defendants would contend that the plaintiff did not supply the goods in time. : 2 : A.S.NO.862 OF 1996 The time for supply was extended and therefore the procedural delay and so there was no payment at that point of time. It was also contended that on 24.3.1994 Rs.1,73,428/= had been paid. The trial court on an exhaustive consideration of the materials granted a decree as follows: “The suit is decreed in part with costs for Rs.2,02,600/= (Rupees two lakhs two thousand and six hundred only) and the plaintiff is allowed to recover from the defendants Rs.54,584/= (Fifty four thousand five hundred and eighty four only) with interest on Rs.152/= (Rupees one hundred and fifty two only) at 18% per annum”. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge had considered question regarding the delayed payment and entitlement of the plaintiff for interest. The court below held that plaintiff is a small scale industrial unit and under the interest of delayed payment to small scale and auxiliary industrial undertakings, it is entitled to get interest at the rate claimed in the plaint. The plaintiff was not able to supply the goods in time. The Government had extended the time for delivery several times and it is a fact that the plaintiff had delivered the remaining goods. The court below found that : 3 : A.S.NO.862 OF 1996 interest on delayed payment to small scale and auxiliary industrial undertaking act entitles the plaintiff to get 5% above the rate of interest charged by the scheduled banks. Ext.A3 is produced to show the rate of interest charged by the banks. But the court found that it is not by the scheduled bank. So taking into consideration the totality, the court held that interest at the rate of 25.2% cannot be granted, but only at 18% can be granted. The trial court after considering the these matters held that from the date of suit till 24.3.1994 interest is payable. So the amount calculated is Rs.2,02,600 + 24960 which come to Rs.2,27,560/=. When Rs.1,73,428/= is deducted, the amount will be Rs.54,132/= and the principal amount is Rs.152/=. So the total amount would come to Rs.54,284/=. The finding arrived at by the trial court cannot be said to be incorrect and the only modification is that the amount would be Rs.54284/= instead of Rs.54,584/=. Therefore a revised decree is passed as follows: 4. A revised decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff with costs for Rs.2,02,600/= and the plaintiff is allowed to : 4 : A.S.NO.862 OF 1996 recover from the defendant Rs.54,284/= with interest on Rs. 152/= at 18% per annum from 28.7.1993 till realisation. I make it very clear that entitlement of interest is only for Rs.152/= from the date mentioned. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs. 5. The learned Government Pleader is requested to inform the concerned to make payment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months, so that the plaintiff can at least enjoy the usufructs of the decree. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 5 : A.S.NO.862 OF 1996 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.862 OF 1996 ............................................. 23rd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T