1 THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.410 OF 2000. APPEAL NO.410 OF 2000. APPEAL NO.410 OF 2000. The Sangli Bank Ltd. ] A Scheduled Commercial bank ] constituted and functioning under ] Indian Companies Act of 1913, ] having its registered office at ] Rajwada Chowk, Sangli and one of ] its branches at Morbe, ] Tal.Mangaon, Dist.Raigad ] .. Appellant Versus 1. Pandurang Dagadu Khadtar ] Adult, Occupation : Business ] R/o Kharavali, Tal.Mangaon and ] residing at Azad Nagar Rahiwasi ] Sangh, Central Railway District ] Raigad Colony, Room No.A-243, ] Matunga, Mumbai- 400019 ] ] For self and as Proprietor of ] Haresh Dying and Printing Works ] ] 2. Shri Kashiram Mahadu Ghulghule ] Adult, Occu.Agriculture and ] Business, R/o Amodoshi, Post Office ] Taka, Taluka Mangaon, Dist.Raigad ] ] 3. Shri Sahadeo Dhondu Monde ] Adult, Occ. Business R/o Pentala, ] Post Pen, Taluka Mangaon ] Dist Raigad ] Respondents None for the Appellant None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. : S.S.SHINDE, J. : S.S.SHINDE, J. DATED DATED DATED : APRIL 29, 2008. : APRIL 29, 2008. : APRIL 29, 2008. 2 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : 1. When the matter was called out for final hearing in the Morning Sessions, none appeared for the appellant as well as for the respondents. Therefore, the matter was kept back. In the Afternoon Sessions, when the matter is called out for final hearing, none appears for the appellant as well as for the respondents. 2. It reveals from the record that when this matter was taken up for final hearing on 13th April 2005, that time also nobody appeared for the appellant and hence the matter was dismissed in default. However, subsequently on the request of appellant, the same was restored to file. 3. This appeal is filed by the original plaintiff challenging the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag Camp at Mahad in Special civil Suit No.66 of 1996 on 15th April 1999. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :- 3 . It is the case of the appellant that Respondent No.1 applied for a loan of Rs.1,87,500/- for starting dyeing and printing factory. Respondent No.1 executed a demand promissory note for the value of Rs.1,87,500/-. On the same day, Respondent No.1 executed a letter of lien and set off. He had also executed a secured term loan agreement whereby he agreed that to pay such a sum with interest at the rate as may be prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. It is the case of the appellant that Respondent No.1 committed defaults in repaying the loan amount. Therefore, the appellant filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.66 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag for recovery of the loan amount on 11th June 1996. 5. The lower court decreed the said suit filed by the appellant with costs. However, since that was a joint and several liability to pay the loan amount, the lower court granted liberty to the respondents to repay the decretal amount of Rs.5,00,498/- by monthly instalment of Rs.7,000/-. In the said suit the appellant claimed interest at the rate of 21.5% per annum. But the lower court granted the interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum in stead of 21.5% per annum. This is the only part that is challenged by 4 the appellant in the appeal. 6. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower Court. Since the order was passed in favour of the appellant/original plaintiff and the suit is decreed with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum, this appeal is filed only to challenge the rate of interest on the ground that the lower court should have granted interest at at the rate of 21.5% per annum as agreed between the parties in stead of 12.5% per annum. 7. In para 18 of its judgment, the lower Court has given reasons for awarding the interest at the rate of 12.5% in stead of 21.5%. The said paragraph reads thus :- "Now the question is in respect of the rate of interest to be charged in the present suit. The plaintiff has claimed an interest at the rate of 21.5% per annum. But at present the defendant No.1 is not in position to pay the same. So in the interest of justice I feel that if agreed interest to the tune of 12.5% per annum is charged, the plaintiff will not 5 be prejudice. On the contrary, the suit claim will be recovered." 8. In my considered opinion, the lower has rightly awarded the interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum. No case is made out by the appellant to disturb the findings of the lower Court. By any stretch of imagination, the rate of interest could not be at 21.5% per annum. Hence, the interest rate which is awarded by the lower Court at 12.%% per annum is very quite and reasonable. 9. For the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the reasoning given by the lower Court. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, J] J] J]