AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. SANJAY BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 11.10.2002 which decreed the suit for recovery of monies filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The monies which are/were claimed are in fact towards interest for delaying payment of the principal amount. The principal amount was paid with respect to terry wool suiting supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant.

(2.) The impugned judgment refers to the clause in the bills/invoices which were issued by the respondent/plaintiff which provided that in case of delay in payment, interest will be chargeable at 21% per annum. The Trial Court has held that in view of this clause in the invoice, the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to interest.

(3.) During the course of hearing, I pointed out to the counsel for the parties the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pandit Munshi Ram Associates v. DDA, 2010 9 AD(Del) 313 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has said that a court may interfere with respect to high rates of interest which are claimed even for the pre-suit period. The Supreme Court also in the recent chain of judgments Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 11 SCC 181, 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 ArbLR 140 has said that the courts, in view of the changed economic scenario and the consistent fall of rate of interest, must reduce the pendente lite and future interest, more so when litigation remains pending for a long time.