Dismissed¶59

Mr. Suresh Kumar Ramsisaria v. Smt. Indira

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2025RFA/1495/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RFA No. 1495 of 2015 (MON); NC: 2025:KHC:44536-DB; decided 04.11.2025; Bench: D K Singh and Tara Vitasta Ganju JJ. Keywords: Section 34 CPC; interest on decreed sum; pendente lite and future interest; commercial transaction; contractual rate; nationalized bank rate; MSME plaintiff not a money lender; money decree Rs.14,94,420/-; 10% p.a. interest upheld against claim for 18% p.a.; appeal under S.96 CPC against money decree dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff is an MSME and is not in the business of money lending; it therefore cannot claim interest at the rate which banks charge on commercial transactions. ¶54

Mr. Suresh Kumar Ramsisaria Vs Smt. Indira — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44536-DB RFA No. 1495 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1495 OF 2015 (MON)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. SURESH KUMAR RAMSISARIA S/O LATE SRI.MOOLCHAND GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SHYAM PLASTICS CONSULTANTS, 37/12-1, ARCHANA COMPLEX, 4^TH CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 027.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ALSO HAVING AN OFFICE AT NO.06, 1^ST CROSS STREET, SYLBAN LODGE COLONY, KILPAUK, CHENNAI 600010 …APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. B S ARAVINDA BABU, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. INDIRA W/O MR. MA. VENKAT, PROPRIETIX, M/S. ARUTHJYOTHI WOVEN BAG INDUSTRIES, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 55-E, ASHTALAKSHLMI APARTMENTS, 1^ST AVENUE, 100 FEET ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 083

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:44536-DB RFA No. 1495 of 2015

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND THEIR FACTORY AT PLOT NO. 821/25 PIPDIC, ELECTRONIC PARK, THIRUBANAI, MANNADIPET, KOMMUNE, PONDICHERRY 605107

¶20

UNION BANK OF INDIA T. NAGAR BRANCH, NO. 96, G.N. CHETTY ROAD, CHENNAI 600017 REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER

¶21

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD CTS NO. 11, 1^ST FLOOR, KEMPEGOWDA MAHARAJA COMPLEX, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶22

THE TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD BANGALURU CITY BRANCH 19-F, ABHINARY THEATRE COMPLEX, B.V.K. IYENGAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶23

MR. M.A. VENKAT GENERAL MANAGER M/S ARUTHIJYOTHI WOOVEN BAG INDUSTRIES HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 55-E, ASHTALAKSHMI APARTMENTS, 1^ST AVENUE, 100 FEET ROAD, ASHOKA NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 083

¶24

AND THEIR FACTORY AT PLOT NO. 821/25, PIPDIC, ELECTRONIC PARK, THIRUBANAI,

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44536-DB RFA No. 1495 of 2015

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

MANNADIPET,

¶28

KOMMUNE, PONDICHERRY- 605107

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. M.ANANTHA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. A KUMARAVEL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O 15.07.2025, STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN R/O 1 &5)

¶31

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF THE CPC.,1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5661/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶32

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶36

The present regular first appeal has been filed

¶37

impugning the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2015 passed in O.S.No.5661 of 2009 by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellant restricts

¶39

his challenge in the present appeal to the award of interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the decreetal amount.

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44536-DB RFA No. 1495 of 2015

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The plaintiff has filed the suit for money decree of Rs.14,94,420/-. The learned Trial Court has decreed the suit for the said sum of Rs.14,94,420/- with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of suit till realization of amount.

¶43

The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that money was due and payable by the defendants in a commercial transaction and therefore, the rate of interest should have been awarded at 18% p.a. on Rs.14,94,420/till the judgment and decree and thereafter, 18% future interest till the awarded sum was paid.

¶44

We have considered the submissions.

¶45

Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure

¶46

provides for payment of interest by the Court on a decreed sum. Section 34 of CPC reads as under:

¶47

"34. Interest.- (1) 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

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44536-DB RFA No. 1495 of 2015

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

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:

¶51

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 nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.

¶52

Explanation I. .xxxx

¶53

Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.

¶54

Plaintiff is an Medium, Small and Micro Industries (MSME). Petitioner is not in the business of money lending and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the petitioner should be allowed the interest, which the bank charges on commercial transactions. We therefore do not find that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in awarding the interest at the rate of

¶55