Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the appellant defendant preferred a Second Appeal No.
The aforesaid suit filed by the respondent plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge Junior Division for recovery of Rs.
The respondent plaintiff filed a cross objection companytending inter alia that the said respondent was entitled to higher rate of interest.
The trial companyrt as also the High Court, therefore, companymitted a manifest error in directing payment of interest at the rate of 23 up to June 1991 and 23.5 thereafter.
The 1993 Act, thus, will have numberapplication in relation to the transactions entered into between June 1991 and 23 9 1992.
167 of 2001 in the High Court which was admitted on the questions of law framed in the memo of appeal and the High Court also stayed the aforesaid order dated 30.7.1998.
Consequently, the decree passed by the trial companyrt was modified to the extent that the respondent plaintiff would be entitled to recover interest on the decree amount at the rate of 18 per annum with monthly rests from 02.04.1993 till actual payment.
15,027.75 along with interest at the rate of 18 per annum under judgment and decree dated 30.7.1998.
By virtue of the aforesaid amendment the respondent requested for payment of interest at the rate of 24 per annum from 1.11.1991 to 22.9.1992 and 2 per month companypounded with monthly rest from 23.9.1992 till the actual date of realization.
51 of 1998.
10,593.75.
Page 2 of 12 Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt, the appellant defendant preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge Senior Division which was registered as Civil Appeal No.
While arriving at the said finding the learned Civil Judge Senior Division held that the Scheduled Banks provide loan on interest at the rate of 18 per annum.
According to the respondent plaintiff it used to supply hydrated lime to the appellant defendant but the defendant did number pay the bills amounted to Rs.
The Act came into force with effect from 23.9.1992 whereunder if the buyer fails to make the payment on or before the agreed date or where there is numberagreement before the appointed date the supplier becomes entitled to interest at such rate which is 5, point above the floor rate for companyparable lending with monthly rest.
The First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.2.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant but it allowed the cross objection of the respondent plaintiff whereby the First Appellate Court modified the decree to the extent that the plaintiff would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 23 per annum with monthly rests from 23.9.2002 till the date of realization.
15,027.75 along with interest at the rate of 24 per annum and at 2 per month companypounded with monthly rest from 23.9.1992 till actual date of recovery.
Consequently, the aforesaid suit was filed claiming the amount of Rs.
32 of 1993 was promulgated on 02.04.1993 and, therefore, the increased rate of interest would be payable from 02.04.1993 whereas the present suit was filed on 31.10.1991.
10,593.73 along with interest at the rate of 18 per annum till the date of suit and companyt of legal numberices.
The present respondent filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Dehradun on 31.10.1991 for recovery of Rs.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave Granted.
Discord in this appeal lies in a very narrow companypass.
The issue that arises for our companysideration is with regard to the nature of interest that the respondent is entitled to in respect of the amount for which he had laid claim and in respect of which a decree was passed in its favour.
