RSA No.968 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.968 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.3.2010 M/s Power Oil Company and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State Bank of Patiala ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.2794-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.968 of 2010 (O&M) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.2,52,368/- along with interest pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 15% per annum with quarterly rests, has been decreed. The only argument raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, rate of interest granted by the Courts below is excessive and the impugned decrees are liable to be modified to that extent. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: “Whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to interest @ RSA No.968 of 2010 (O&M) 2 15% per annum with quarterly rests particularly when the fault lies with the plaintiff-respondent moreover the defendant-appellants had specifically pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff-respondent could take possession of the hypothecated goods?” I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is without any force. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has been authoritatively answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others AIR 2001 SC 3095 wherein it has been laid down that the award of interest pendente lite and post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC dehors the contract between the parties. However, in Clariant International Ltd. and another v. Securities and Exchange Board of India AIR 2004 SC 4236, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interest can be granted in terms of agreement. Thus, the Court has the power to award contractual rate of interest during the period in which proceedings were pending before the Court till payment of decretal amount. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that in the present case agreed rate of interest has been awarded to the plaintiff-respondent. Once that is so, it cannot be held that there was any error of jurisdiction on the part of the Courts below in exercise of its jurisdiction while granting the agreed rate of interest to the plaintiff- respondent vide impugned judgment and decrees. In view of the fact that the appellant had agreed to pay interest @ 15% per annum with monthly rests, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. RSA No.968 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. March 26, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE