Allowed

P.Chandran v. Raji Prasad

Kerala HC22 Sept 2021RFA/177/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular first appeal, the High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal against a decree for return of advance. The court modified the decree to grant 6% per annum interest on future amounts and awarded proportionate costs, holding non-grant was unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; decree modified to grant 6% per annum interest from date of suit till decree and thereafter, plus proportionate costs.

P.Chandran Vs Raji Prasad — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 31ST BHADRA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 177 OF 2020(H)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29/02/2020 IN OS 209/2014 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

P.CHANDRAN, AGED 65, S/O. PONNU, PALIYODE HOUSE, KOLLUPARAMBU, VERKOLI, POLPULLY AMSOM, PALAKKAD, PIN 678 552

¶9

BY ADVS. P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SMT.B.ANUSREE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SMT.MEERA P.

¶10

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶11

RAJI PRASAD, AGED 48, S/O. NAMASIVAYAM, PUNNAKKODE HOUSE, POLPULLY AMSOM, PALAKKAD, PIN 678 552.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶13

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON

¶14

22.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RFA NO. 177 OF 2020 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Aggrieved by the non-grant of pendente lite

¶18

interest and proportionate cost in a decree directing return of advance amount based on a contract for sale, the plaintiff came up. The trial court instead of granting specific performance, granted a decree for return of advance amount without ordering pendente lite interest and without granting

¶19

proportionate cost. The future interest granted at 6% is also challenged as insufficient.

¶20

Admittedly, there is no consensus in the

¶21

agreement for payment of interest or its rate. It is not a commercial transaction. Hence, the amount adjudicated will carry interest from the date of suit till the date of decree and a reasonable interest @ 6% can be applied. The future interest granted at 6% deserves no interference as it is in tune with the mandate under Section 34 C.P.C. The non-grant of proportionate cost cannot be justified.

¶22

The claim based on the forfeiture clause

¶23

RFA NO. 177 OF 2020 3

¶24

cannot be sustained unless there is quantification of damages or evidence to show the actual damages sustained. No cross appeal was submitted in that behalf, hence requires no consideration. The interest claimed prior to the suit cannot be allowed since there is no demand notice.

¶25

Hence, the appeal will stand allowed modifying the decree of the trial court granting interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree to the sum adjudicated and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization. The plaintiff/appellant is entitled to proportionate cost of the amount decreed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

P.Chandran v. Raji Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chandran v. Raji Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobha Vs Sasikumar

Prabhakaran K. Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

Sreedevi Amma Vs K.N.Bhaskaran Nair

Satheesh Vs Varghese

Varghese Vs V.S. Satheesh

Pegadan Abdusalim Vs Kannanthodi Bushra