IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 Co.Appeal.No. 51 of 2010 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN CC.No.15/2009 IN C.P.No.34 & 53 of 2002 Dated 26/05/2010 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------- 1. SRI.MOIDEEN SHAH, QUEEN STUDIO, THRISSUR. 2. SMT.SULEKHA MOIDEEN SHAH, W/O.MOIDEEN SHAH, KAKKAMKANDATH HOUSE, P.O. PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------------------ THE MAYURAM CHITTIES & GENERAL FINANCE PVT.LTD. REPRESNTED BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.MONI THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ Company Appeal No.51 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This appeal is filed feeling aggrieved by the grant of interest in judgment dated 26.5.2010 in C.C.No.15/2009 in CP No.34 & 53 of 2002. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the liquidator. 2. The case of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting interest from 5.3.2000 at 6 %. A review petition was filed which resulted in Annexure-I order rejecting the review filed by the appellants. 3. According to the appellants, this is a case where the Directors of the company were absconding and the kuri company was closed and that it was only because the company was not in existence, the appellants could not effect the balance payment from the 38th instalment onwards. It is also the case of the appellants that they could only know from their enquiry that the head office of the company is in Faridabad. It is the further case of the appellants that they have not received any demand notice allegedly issued on COA No.51/2010 -2- 2.2.2007. The date of winding up order is passed on August, 2004 and the company claim has been filed in August 2008 and it is seen numbered only in 2009. Accordingly, it is the case of the appellants that they are not responsible for the delay and that it happened solely due to the respondent. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered these aspects when he ordered 6% interest from 5.3.2000. 4. After having heard the learned counsel, we feel that interest of justice would be subserved if the direction to pay the interest is sustained, but, at the rate of 4%. Accordingly, we modify the judgment and decree and we direct that the appellants shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,465 together with interest at 4% per annum from 5.3.2000 till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation together with proportionate costs. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE. MS