IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 Co.Appeal.No. 2 of 2011() ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CP.34/2002 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- SRI.MOIDEEN SHAH, QUEEN'S STUDIO, TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT : CLAIMANT ----------------------- THE MAYURAM CHITTIES & GENERAL FINANCE (PVT.) LTD., (IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) REPRESENTED BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR SRI.K.MONI THIS COMPANY APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.430 of 2011 in Co.Appeal No.2 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 266 days in filing a company appeal. The respondent has entered appearance. We have heard the counsel. We take a lenient view. 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. Company Appeal No.2 of 2011 An amount of Rs.73,923/- is admittedly due from the appellant to the company which is ordered to be wound up. In a claim made by the company the court ordered that the said amount be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The claim for the principal amount was admitted. But objections were raised to the claim for interest @ 12% from the date on which the company went into liquidation. The learned Single Judge took a lenient view and directed payment of interest only @ 6% per annum from the date of the order of winding up. Co.Appeal No.2 of 2011 2 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award of interest @ 6% per annum, that too from the date of the order of winding up, is not justified. Interest should have been waived altogether. At least the rate of interest deserves to the reduced. It is further submitted that interest is awarded from the date of the order of winding up and it should have been awarded only from the date of the claim. 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant anxiously. We are not persuaded to agree that the rate of interest or the date from which the interest is ordered to be paid deserves alteration/modification. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the amounts are due to the company and that is payable to the creditors of the company. The rate of interest awarded is absolutely reasonable, modest and just. The amount was due to be paid to the company long prior to the date of winding up. Interest is ordered to be paid from the date of winding up only. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Co.Appeal No.2 of 2011 3 4. This Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/