INDIAN BANK Vs. A R INDUSTRIES KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.431 of 1986 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam is the appellant.

(2.) The first respondent first defendant is a partnership firm carrying on the business in manufacturing and sale of rubber goods and job works including mixing and mastication. The second respondent second defendant is the managing partner and the third respondent third defendant the other partner of the first respondent first defendant firm.

(3.) The defendants had availed credit facilities on the plaintiff-Bank to do their business. The loan transactions were secured by executing various demand promissory notes along with hypothecation of the plant and machineries and also by an equitable mortgage in respect of the properties scheduled to the plaint. The defendants having failed to settle their liabilities to the plaintiff, the latter filed O.S.431 of 1986 before the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam for a decree directing the respondent defendants jointly and severally to pay the appellant plaintiff an amount of Rs. 14,62,494.00 with interest at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and charged on the scheduled properties. The appellant plaintiff also specifically prayed for a decree for future interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 14,62,494.00. The respondents defendants filed a statement in the court below admitting the plaint claim. Thereupon the court below came to the conclusion that the appellant plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. In the result, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 14,62,494.00 with interest thereon at 16% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree. The learned Subordinate Judge further granted a decree for future interest from the date of suit till date of realisation only at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellant plaintiff is aggrieved by the decree of the court below to the extent of restricting future interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 16% per annum as prayed for. Hence this appeal.