RSA No.2400 of 1988 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2400 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision.14.05.2019 M/s Ved Parkash Roshan Lal Commision Agent ...Appellant Vs M/s Laxmi Rice and General Mills ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The present regular second appeal is directed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby future interest @1.5% per mensem on the principal amount of `43,709.81 from the date of decree till realization was granted. The appellant-plaintiff sought recovery of `73,000/- i.e. principal amount of `41,709.81 and remaining interest against the defendants, which was decreed by the trial Court along with interest @6% per annum and in appeal, the lower Appellate Court while granting decree of `71,000/- awarded future interest @1.5% per mensem on the principal amount only as referred to above. Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant sought modification of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court to the extent that interest @1.5% should have been granted on the entire amount i.e. `71,000/- as it was a business transaction. PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.05.24 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.2400 of 1988 (O&M) -2- I am afraid aforementioned argument would not be sustainable as the plaintiff has not been able to establish on record the losses incurred entitling interest @1.5% per mensem on the future interest, which has already been awarded @1.5% per mensem on the principal amount. It amounts to interest on interest i.e. law of damdupat, which is not permissible in law. In view of such circumstances, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgment and decree rendered by the lower Appellate Court, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 14, 2019 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.05.24 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document