1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR S.A.NO.134 of 2010. Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India and anr. .vs. Zakir Hussain Usuf Ali =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.SR.Deshpande. for the appellants. Mr.C.A.Joshi Adv. for the respondent. C ORAM : C.L.Pangarkar, J. DATED : 29th April, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent. This second appeal has been preferred by the original defendants. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of security deposit lying with the appellant/defendant stating that the same was not paid even after completion of the contract. The plaintiff was required to file a suit. He claimed interest at 18% per annum. The trial court awarded a decree for refund of the security deposit together with interest at 18% per annum. The said decree was challenged before the first 2 appellate court. The appellate court confirmed the decree of Rs.61,103/- but directed the interest to be paid from 23/2/1988 to 4/8/1988 only at the rate of 18% P.A. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred. After going through the judgment of the first appellate court, it appears that the defendant has admitted that it had taken a security deposit of Rs.60,952/-. In any case, the defendant/appellant was bound to refund that amount. The only question that remained to be decided was payment of interest. The trial court as a fact has found that the certificate was not produced before the authority till 23/2/1988. The first appellate court has, therefore, rightly not granted interest prior to that date. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that 18% interest could not have been granted. The submission is not correct. The court held that it was a commercial transaction and interest at bank rate has to be awarded. It was rightly awarded. Further more, this ground was not raised in the first appeal at all and therefore, cannot be raised in the second appeal for the first time. In the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the second appeal. The same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute 3