ash 1 fa-1432.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1432 OF 2010 M/s. Shreeram Finance & Investment Corporation (Registered Firm) through its partners ­ 1. Mr. Narayan KrushnajiKulkarni and Others. .. Appellants Vs Madhav Raghunath Kamat & Others. .. Respondents ­­ Shri Ajay A. Joshi for the Appellants. Shri Amit Shete for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ­­ CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 1ST AUGUST, 2011 P.C. . The Appellants who are some of the original Defendants have taken an exception to the judgment and decree dated 28th August, 2009 passed by the Trial Court in a suit filed by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The Appellants are some of the Defendants. The first and Second Respondents are the original Plaintiffs. 2. The 1st Appellant is a partnership firm by the name M/s. Shreeram Finance & Investment Corporation. The case made out by the 1st and 2nd Respondents is that on 3rd May, 1999, the 1st Respondent ash 2 fa-1432.10 invested the total amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ in separate fixed deposits of Rs.50,000/­, Rs.50,000/­, Rs.25,000/­ and Rs.25,000/­ respectively with the Appellant firm. According to the 1st and the 2nd Respondents, the Appellants agreed to repay double the said amount on 3rd November, 2003. According to the 1st and the 2nd Respondents, against the investment of Rs.1,50,000/­ made by them, the Appellants agreed to repay Rs.3,00,000/­ on 3rd November, 2003. The suit was filed for recovery of the said amount with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. The suit was filed after a demand notice dated 17th January, 2005 was served. The suit was contested by filing a written statement. The Trial Court held that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had invested a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ with the Appellants and the Appellants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ after 4 and ½ years. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,68,000/­ to the 1st and 2nd Respondents together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ from the date of institution of the suit till realization. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the challenge is confined to the interest granted at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit and no other part of the decree has been challenged. He invited attention of the Court to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ash 3 fa-1432.10 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Code”). He submitted that there is no agreement to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He placed a reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Badrinarayan Bansilal Somani v Vinodkumar K. Shah, (2008(6) Bom.C.R. 273). He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Citibank N.A. V/s. Standard Chartered Bank, (AIR 2005 SC 94). Lastly, he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.D.A. And Others v. Joginder S. Monga and Others, (AIR 2004 SC 3291). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that on the fixed deposit receipts, there is a clear assurance to pay double the amount invested on or before 3rd November, 2003. He submitted that thus within a period of 4 and ½ years, the Appellants agreed to return double the amount invested. He submitted that thus on a simple arithmetical calculation, the said Appellants agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the invested amount. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the 1st and 2nd Respondents invested Rs.1,50,000/­ with the Appellants and that the Appellants had agreed to repay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ on 3rd November, 2003 i.e. After expiry of 4 and ½ years. Thus, there was an agreement to pay interest. ash 4 fa-1432.10 If simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/­ is calculated, the yearly interest will be Rs.27,000/­ and interest for 4 and ½ years will be approximately Rs.1,21,500/­. Thus, it is not possible to accept the submission that there was no agreement to pay interest. 6. In the case of Badrinarayan Bansilal Somani (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that in absence of any agreed rate of interest, the Court will have to use the discretion under section 34 of the said Code. In the case of Citibank (supra), the rate of interest has been determined by the Apex Court in the facts of the case. In the case of D.D.A and others (supra), the Apex Court was not dealing with a case where there was an agreement to pay interest at a particular rate. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants relied upon the observations of the Apex Court that the rate of interest has to be fixed having regard to the principles of restitution. The suit was filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents on 21st February, 2005. The amount payable on 3rd November, 2003 was not paid by the 1st and 2nd Respondents till then. Considering the rate of interest reflected from the fixed deposit receipts, grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit cannot be faulted with. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court is based on the consideration of relevant factors and hence, no case is made out for interference. ash 5 fa-1432.10 7. The Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )