Com. C.S.No.

129/2022 Judgment

Received on 21 04 2022

Registered on 21 04 2022

Decided on 04 11 2023
Duration 14 06 01
DD MM YY

IN THE COURT OF 3RDADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

[ COMMERCIAL COURT ]
SURAT,
COMMERCIAL C. S. NO. 129 OF 2022
EXHIBIT:-

Ashok Madhubhai Sojitra,

PLAINTIFF : Power of attorney holder for “Siddheshwar Texo
Fab”
Aged : 33, Occupation : Textile Fabric Trading,
Address : G/32, Landmark, Puna Kumbhariya, Surat,
Kadodara Road, Surat.

V E R S U S

[1] M/s. Aadhunik Corporation,

DEFENDANTS : [2] Prakash Mangilal Joshi

Proprietor for M/s. Aadhunik Corporation,
Aged : Adult, Occupation: Textile,
Address of both :
(1) Plot No.108, Shiv Nagar, Opp. Super Cinema,
Godadara Road, Nr. Godadara Naher, Surat.

PAGE 1

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

(2) 17, Keshav Park Co-operative Housing Service

Society, Behind Gitanjali Vidhya Sankul, Parvat
Gam, Godadara, Surat.
(3) Mukam-Kamol, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(4) A-110, 1st Floor, Landmark Empire on Surat
Kadodara Road, Saroli, Surat.

Subject : Suit for Recovery of Rs. 4,33,410/- along with interest 18 %.

Appearance : Ld. Adv. S. S. Tiwari for the plaintiff

: Ld. Adv A. Z. Shaikh for the defendant.

-::J U D G M E N T ::-
[1] The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of
Rs.4,33,410/- along with interest thereon. Brief facts of the
plaintiff’s case are as under:-
That the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm engaged in business of
selling Textile fabrics with the name of Siddheshwar Texo Fab.
The defendant No. 1 is proprietorship firm and defendant No. 2
conducts business at above mentioned address. The defendant
approached the plaintiff through agent Hanuman Gangaram
Chaudhary and presented himself as leading businessman and also
having other firms on large scale and requested to start business
on conditions of timely payment, if failing of which he is ready to
pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the outstanding amount.
Hence, initially the defendant placed the order from January-2020
to February-2020 from the plaintiff vide 11 different bills, to
worth of Rs.4,37,814/- and after receiving the said goods, the

PAGE 2

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

defendant assured the quality, quantity and conditions of goods

and he had no objection regarding quality and the quantity. After
completion of stipulated time and consistent persuasion by
plaintiff defendant issued two cheques total amounting of
Rs.40,000/- as part payment by accepting liabilty of said delivered
and accepted goods. However, the same cheques were dishonored
with reason “funds Insufficient” and the defendant requested
plaintiff not to take any legal action against defendant and
promised plaintiff to pay the above mentioned bill amount with
interest. That after consistent follow up by the plaintiff. However,
In spite of repeated requests, reminders and demands, defendant
was failed to make payment. Hence, the plaintiff issued legal
demand notice through his advocate and sent to the defendants on
29.09.2021 and the same was served to the defendant, but he has
not complied with the notice. The plaintiff has provided original
tax invoices, transport receipts of the goods to the defendant.
According to the aforesaid dues the plaintiff is entitled to recover
the outstanding amounting to Rs.4,14,571/- along with 18%
interest pendent-lite and future interest till payment and or
realization. The cost of the application be awarded in favour of
the plaintiff.

[2] After receipt of this suit, the summons be ordered to be issued to

the defendants and the defendant has duly been served with the
summons, and they have filed written statement vide Exh.13
wherein they have denied the case of the plaintiff.

PAGE 3

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

[3] In this matter, defendants have not appeared before this Court
and as such there is no any written statement, there is no contest
from the defendant side. Therefore, it would be appropriate to
refer some of provisions relating to non filing of Written
Statement / Evasive denial by the defendants. "Order 8 Rule 3A.
Denial by the defendant in suits before the Commercial Division
of the High Court or the Commercial Court-
1. Denial shall be in the manner provided in sub-rules (2), (3),
(4)and (5) of this Rule.
2. The defendant in his written statement shall state which of the
allegations in the particulars of plaint he denies, which
allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he
requires the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he
admits.
3. Where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint,
he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put
forward a different version of events from that given by the
plaintiff, he must state his own version.
4. If the defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the Court he must
state the reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own
statement as to which Court ought to have jurisdiction.
5. If the defendant disputes the plaintiff's valuation of the suit, he
must state his reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his
own statement of the value of the suit."
Order 8 Rule 5 "Specific denial"
1. Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically
or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in
the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted
except as against a person under disability :

PAGE 4

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

Provided that the Court may in it discretion require any fact

so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such
admission."Provided further that every allegation of fact in the
plaint, if not denied in the manner provided under Rule 3A of
this Order, shall betaken to be admitted except as against a
person under disability."
2. Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be
lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the
facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under
a disability,but the Court may, in its discretion, require any
such fact to be proved.
3. In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or
under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact
whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader.
4. Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree
shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such
decrees hall bear the date on which the judgment was
pronounced.

[4] Therefore, when the defendant has filed the written statement, the
Court has ample powers to pass the decree on the basis of
evidence produced by the plaintiff. The Court is also empowered
to call for the plaintiff to produce his evidences and prove his
case. In this case also considering fact of the case find proper to
frame issue and call plaintiff to produce his evidences.

[5] From the pleadings of the plaintiff, to adjudicate the present

matter following issues are framed vide Exh.16 in case
management order for determination may arise:

PAGE 5

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

: ISSUES :
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they were having business
relationship with the defendant and an amount of
Rs.4,33,410/- is outstanding for towards principal and
interest as alleged in the plaint ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants have issued
two cheques of Rs. 20,000/- each and the same were
returned unpaid ?
3. Whether defendants proves that blanks cheques were issued
for security as alleged in written statement ?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any relief or reliefs as
claimed in the plaint?
5. What order and decree?

[6] The findings of this Court for the above-mentioned issues are as
follows:-
1. In the Partly Affirmative.
2. In the Affirmative.
3. In Negative.
4. In the Affirmative.
5. As per final order.

[7] To substantiate the suit plaintiff has filed following oral

as well as documentary e vidence:

PAGE 6

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

ORAL EVIDENCE BY PLAINTIFF

Sr. No Exhibit Particular

1. 17 Deposition of Ashokbhai Madhubhai Sojitra,

Plaintiff.

ORAL EVIDENCE BY PLAINTIFF

Sr. No Exhibit Particular

1. 23 Power of attorney.

2. 24 Partnership deed of plaintiff’s firm.

3. 25 GST certificate of plaintiff’s firm.

4. 26 Online G.S.T. statement of defendant.

5. 27 Tax invoice No.BL/5876/19-20 of goods

sent by the plaintiff to the defendant
21.01.2020.

6. 28 Tax invoice No.BL/5909/19-20 of goods

sent by the plaintiff to the defendant
21.01.2020.

7. 29 Tax invoice No.BL/6782/19-20 of goods

sent by the plaintiff to the defendant
20.02.2020.

8. 30 Tax invoice No.BL/6783/19-20 of goods

sent by the plaintiff to the defendant
20.02.2020.

9. 31 Tax invoice No.BL/6784/19-20 of goods

PAGE 7

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

sent by the plaintiff to the defendant

20.02.2020.

10. 32 Tax invoice No.BL/6785/19-20 of goods

sent by the plaintiff to the defendant
22.02.2020.

11. 33 Tax invoice No.BL/6786/19-20 of goods

sent by the plaintiff to the defendant
20.02.2020.

12. 34 Tax invoice No.BL/6787/19-20 of goods

sent by the plaintiff to the defendant
20.02.2020.

13. 35 Cheque No.000083 of HDFC Bank Drawn

by the defendant 27.10.2020.

14. 36 Return of cheque no.000083 of the Bank

05.11.2020.

15. 37 Cheque No.000084 of HDFC Bank Drawn

by the defendant 28.10.2020.

16. 38 Return of cheque no.000084 of the Bank

05.11.2020.

17. 39 Office copy of the notice sent to the

defendant.

18. 40 Original postal receipt 29.09.2021.

19. 41 Internet copy of online track result of

posted notice.

PAGE 8

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

20. 42 Internet copy of online track result

posted notice.

21. 43 Internet copy of online track result

posted notice.

22. 44 Return cover with postal intimation

“Addressee Moved”

23. 45 Return cover with postal intimation

“Addressee Moved”

24. 46 CA certified B2B Summary return.

25. 47 Certifies ledger report.

26. 48 CA certified audit report.

27. 49 GST return filed by the defendant.

28. 50 Certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act.

29. 51 Bank statement.

:: R E A S O N S ::

[8] Before determination of this case, it is to be borne in the mind

that the suit of the plaintiff bank need not necessarily be decreed
merely because the defendant has not filed or submitted his
written statement or the matter has been proceeded exparte
against the defendant. To clarify this proposition, it would be
necessary to refer one of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
namely Ramesh Chand Ardawaiya Vs. Anil Panjiwani, reported in

PAGE 9

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

[AIR 2003 SC 2508] in which it has been held that even if the
suit proceeded ex-parte and in the absence of a written statement,
unless the applicability of Order 8 rule 10 of the code of Civil
Procedure is attracted and the court acts thereunder, the necessity
of proof by the plaintiff of his case to the satisfaction of the court
cannot be dispensed with. In the absence of denial of plaint
averments the burden of proof on the plaintiff is not very heavy.
A prima facie proof of the relevant facts constituting the cause of
action would suffice and the court would grant the plaintiff such
relief as to which he may in law be found entitled. In a case
which has proceeded ex-parte, the court is not bound to frame
issues under Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and deliver
the judgment on every issue as required by Order 20 Rule 5 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Yet the trial court would scrutinize
the available pleadings and documents, consider the evidence
adduced, and would do well to frame the “points for
determination” and proceed to construct the ex-parte judgment
dealing with the points at issue one by one. Merely because the
defendant is absent, the court shall not admit evidence and the
admissibility whereof is excluded by law nor permit its decision.
So as per this pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
necessity of the plaintiff to prove his case is not lost even if the
matter has been proceeded ex-parte.

PAGE 10

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

ISSUES No. 1 :-
[9] Plaintiff came with pla that Plaintiff having business relationship
with the defendant and an amount of Rs.4,33,410/- is outstanding
for towards principal and interest as alleged in the plaint.
Plaintiff Mr. Ashokbhai Madhubhai Sojitra vide Exh.17 his Chief
examination on Affidavite as per Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and
stated that That the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm engaged in
business of selling Textile fabrics with the name of Siddheshwar
Texo Fab. The defendant No. 1 is proprietorship firm and
defendant No. 2 conducts business at above mentioned address.
The defendant approached the plaintiff through agent Hanuman
Gangaram Chaudhary and presented himself as leading
businessman and also having other firms on large scale and
requested to start business on conditions of timely payment, if
failing of which he is ready to pay interest at the rate of 18%
p.a. on the outstanding amount. Hence, initially the defendant
placed the order from January-2020 to February-2020 from the
plaintiff vide 11 different bills, to worth of Rs.4,37,814/- and after
receiving the said goods, the defendant assured the quality,
quantity and conditions of goods and he had no objection
regarding quality and the quantity. After completion of stipulated
time and consistent persuasion by plaintiff defendant issued two
cheques total amounting of Rs.40,000/- as part payment by
accepting liabilty of said delivered and accepted goods. However,
the same cheques were dishonored with reason “funds
Insufficient” and the defendant requested plaintiff not to take any

PAGE 11

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

legal action against defendant and promised plaintiff to pay the

above mentioned bill amount with interest. That after consistent
follow up by the plaintiff. However, In spite of repeated requests,
reminders and demands, defendant was failed to make payment.
Hence, the plaintiff issued legal demand notice through his
advocate and sent to the defendants on 29.09.2021 and the same
was served to the defendant, but he has not complied with the
notice. The plaintiff has provided original tax invoices, transport
receipts of the goods to the defendant. According to the aforesaid
dues the plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding amounting
to Rs.4,14,571/- along interest and there is nothing contrary
which brought on record.

[10] The plaintiff has produced the documentary evidences vide Exh.
23 to 51, Partnership deed of plaintiff’s firm with registration
certificate at Exh. 24, GST certificate of plaintiff’s firm at Exh. 25
and Power of attorney at Exh. 23. Online G.S.T. statement of
defendant. Exhibit 25 is GST registration certificate. Exhibit 27 to
34 are the invoices and transport receipts of goods delivered to
the defendant. Exh. 47 is the certified ledger accounts of
defendant with outstanding report which shows that Rs.3,19,329/-
is outstanding against the defendant. The evidences tendered by
the plaintiff has remained unchallenged and hence, from these
oral as well as documentary evidences, it is proved on record that
an amount of Rs.3,19,329/- was outstanding from the defendants
towards the sale of the goods.

PAGE 12

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

[11] It is also case of plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to recover

Rs.1,14,081/- (Rs. One lakh Fourteen thousand and Eighty One
only) as pre suit interest from the defendants. As discussed later
on in Issue No. 4 plaintiff entitle for pre suit interest but not at
rate of 18 %. So, Issue no. 1 reply in Partly Affirmative.

ISSUES No. 2 and 3 :-

[12] Both issues are interconnected with the each other, and hence,
with a view to avoid repetition of the facts and the evidence, all
these issues are discussed and decided together.

[13] It is also case of plaintiff that defendants have issued two cheques
of Rs. 20,000/- each and the same were returned unpaid. At the
same time it is defence of defendant that he has issued blanks
cheques for security purpose only not towards any liability.

[14] Plaintiff has in his affidavite of examination in chief has deposed

that After completion of stipulated time and consistent persuasion
by plaintiff defendant issued two cheques total amounting of
Rs.40,000/- as part payment by accepting liabilty of said delivered
and accepted goods. However, the same cheques were dishonored
with reason “funds Insufficient”. Plaintiff has also produced
cheque no. 000083 of Rs. 20,000/- at exh no. 35 and cheque
return memo at exh no. 36 and cheque no. 000084 of Rs.
20,000/- at exh no. 37 and cheque return memo at exh no. 38.
defendant has not challenged his signature.

PAGE 13

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

[15] But defendant has rise defence that M/s Adhunik Corporation
never issued cheque in favour of plaintiff and on which cheques
plaintiff relies, issued by Praksh Mangilal on his personal capacity
So plaintiff have not get benefit of cheque issued by defendant
no. 2 against defendant no.1. Further it was also rised defence
that defendant no. 2 has issued cheque as security purpose only,
which cheques were misused by plaintiff.

[16] At this jucture it is profitable to refer s.118 of The Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881. as Follows :-
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. —Until the contrary
is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:—
(a) of consideration —that every negotiable instrument was
made or drawn for consideration, and that every such
instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed,
negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed,
negotiated or transferred for consideration;
(b) as to date —that every negotiable instrument bearing a
date was made or drawn on such date;
(c) as to time of acceptance —that every accepted bill of
exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its
date and before its maturity;
(d) as to time of transfer —that every transfer of a
negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;
(e) as to order of indorsements —that the indorsements
appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in
the order in which they appear thereon;

PAGE 14

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

(f) as to stamps —that a lost promissory note, bill of

exchange or cheque was duly stamped;
(g) that holder is a holder in due course —that the holder of
a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course:
Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained
from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful
custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has
been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by
means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful
consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a
holder in due course lies upon him.

[17] According to Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the
plaintiff has the initial burden of proving a prima facie case in his
favour. Once the plaintiff presents evidence to support a prima
facie case in his favour, the defendant is then required to present
evidence to the court of law that supports the plaintiff’s case. The
burden of proof may return to the plaintiff as the case develops.
The following presumptions the following presumptions shall be
made:- of consideration, as to date, as to time of acceptance, as
to time of transfer, as to order of indorsements, as to stamp, that
holder is a holder in due course shall be made unless the contrary
is shown, according to Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act of 1881.

[18] Further, A sole proprietorship firm is not considered to be a

separate legal entity. The sole proprietorship’s and Proprietor’s
assets and liabilities are the same. Therefore, the Proprietor is

PAGE 15

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

held personally liable for the liabilities of the sole proprietorship

firm. This exposes the Proprietor to unlimited liability from the
business. As same as the proprietorship firm is held personally
liable for the liabilities of the Sole Proprietor.

[19] Even, to prove his defence defendant not step into witness box.
So. Plaintiff’s evidence remain unchallenged. when defendant
came with special defence it is duty and burden of defendant to
prove his defence. But discussed earlier defendant failed to prove
his defence and there is nothing on record with creat doubt on
case of plaintiff. This court of the opininon that plaintiff
succeeded to prove that After completion of stipulated time and
consistent persuasion by plaintiff defendant issued two cheques
total amounting of Rs.40,000/- as part payment by accepting
liabilty of said delivered and accepted goods. However, the same
cheques were dishonored with reason “funds Insufficient”. where
as defendant no.1 failed to prove that On which cheque plaintiff
relying, has been issued as security purpose and also failed to
prove that they have not liable to make payment for cheque
issued by defendant no.2. So, Issue no. 2 reply in
Affirmative and Issue no. 3 reply in Negative.

ISSUES No. 4 :-

[20] It is relevant to refer legal mxim that - "Affirmantis est probare."

[The person who affirms must prove.] "Affirmanti, non neganti,
incumbit probatio." [The proof is incumbent upon the one who
affirms, not on the one who denies.] In present case as discussed

PAGE 16

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

above Plaintiff has filed the suit against defendant to recover

outstanding amount and as such, defendant is liable for the
payment of outstanding with interest. In view of the foregoing
discussions, plaintiff is succeed to prove that an amount of
Rs.3,19,329/- is outstanding.

[21] As regards the interest, the plaintiff has calculated the interest at
the rate of 18% per annum and has demanded the same. As per
Order VII Rule 2 (A) of the amended CPC for the commercial
suits, it is mandatory for the plaintiff to provide the details of the
interest claimed.

[22] Awarding of interest by the Court is governed by Sec. 34 of the

Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under :

34. INTEREST :

Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money,

the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as
the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum
adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree,
in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for
any period prior to the institution of the suit [with further
interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as
the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum], from the
date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier
date as the Court thinks fit :

PAGE 17

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so

adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate
of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum,
but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where
there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent
or advanced by nationalised Banks in relation to commercial
transaction.

(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment

of further interest [on such principal sum] from the date of the
decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court
shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate
suit therefor shall not lie.

The plaintiff has calculated the interest at the rate 18% per
annum for the pre-suit period and for that, it has been pleaded
that the bill is containing a stipulation that payment shall be
made by the due date failing which interest at the rate of 18%
per annum shall be charged. In this bill no any specific due date
is mentioned and no clear evidence is there. Moreover, there is
no any specific written contract between the parties from which,
it can be said that the defendants liable for such interest. No any
custom or usage has been proved on record regarding the rate of
interest and the plaintiff is not entitled to interest at the rate of
18% per annum.

[23] In a case reported in Ravi Fabrics v. Shaherbon Traders and

others [ AIR 2003 Madras 192 ] Hon'ble Madras High Court while

PAGE 18

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

considering the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil

Procedure has held that
“The Court is empowered to grant pre-suit interest. Hon'ble
Madras High Court has held that where there was Commercial
transaction between the parties and in absence of contract
between parties to pay interest at particular rate and no evidence
was adduced as to what is interest prevalent as per trade and
custom or usage, the Court is justified in granting interest at rate
of 6% p.a. in regard to period between date of demand and date
of presentation of suit.”

[24] Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case reported in M/S. Sangat

Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Wimpy International Ltd [2012(0) AIJ-
DL-1349644] has held that Court is empowered to grant pre-suit
interest. In para 6 and 7 of the judgment Hon'ble Delhi High
Court has held as under;
"Though, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has not
argued one aspect with respect to the interest, I however feel in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant/plaintiff
ought not to be granted interest at 18% per annum for the pre-
suit period and at 18% per annum pendente-lite and future as
claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. I may note that the Supreme
Court in the recent catena of judgments reported as Rajendra
Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development
Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, Mc Dermott International
Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181,

PAGE 19

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd.,

(2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v.
G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro
Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has held
that the Courts should be alive to the change of interest regime,
and Courts should reduce the unnecessary high rates of interest,
especially considering the long pendency of litigation. A Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pandit Munshi Ram
Associates vs. DDA 2010 (9) AD (Delhi) 313, has also held that
the rate of interest for the pre-suit period, if the same is
unnecessarily excessive, is violative of public policy.

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court

and a Division Bench judgment of this Court I deem it fit that the
pre-suit interest, pendente-lite interest and future interest till
payment should be at 12% per annum simple and which is
granted accordingly."

[25] In view of the above decisions, it is very much clear that the
Court is empowered to grant pre-suit interest. It is also very much
clear that when the interest alleged to have been claimed is
unnecessarily excessive, is violative of public policy the Court is
well within its jurisdiction to grant just and proper pre-suit
interest. In this case, the plaintiff has calculated the pre-suit
interest at the rate of 18% per annum but the same is not the
agreed rate of interest and no such custom is proved and hence,

PAGE 20

3rd ASCJ, Surat

Com. C.S.No.129/2022 Judgment

considering the nature of transaction and present trend of

economy, it would be just and proper to grant pre-suit interest,
pendent lite and future interest at rate of 12 % per annum from
the date of demand of the outstanding amount. Similarly,
considering the nature of transaction between the parties, the
plaintiff is entitled for pre-suit interest, pendent lite and future
interest at the rate of 12 % per annum. In view of foregoing
discussions Issue No. 4 is answered, in terms of the final order
and following final order is passed in the interest of justice−
::ORDER::
1. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly-allowed.
2. The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.3,19,329/-(Three lakh
Nineteen thousand Three hundred Twenty Nine only) from the
defendants with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the due date of
payment [i.e. 20-02-2020 ] to till its realization.
3. The plaintiff is entitled for cost of the suit including mediation
fees.
4. Decree be drawn accordingly.

Signed and Pronounced in this open court on this 04th day of November
month of year 2023.
Dt. 04/11/2023
Surat. (N. G. Parmar)
3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge,
[ Commercial Court ]
Surat.
Judge Code: GJ00869
PAGE 21

3rd ASCJ, Surat