Allowed

S.Kannan v. R.Kuppusamy

Madras HC9 Sept 2022SA/597/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court allowed the appeal against a decree. The court held that since there was no agreement on a 24% interest rate, it is barred as exorbitant. The appellants were directed to pay the principal of Rs.30,000 with interest at 12% from borrowing to suit filing and 6% thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to pay principal Rs.30,000 with interest at 12% till suit filing and 6% thereafter, time to deposit granted within three months.

S.Kannan Vs R.Kuppusamy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

S.A.No.597 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

S.A.No.597 of 2013

and

M.P.No.1 of 2013

1.S.Kannan 2.K.Visalakshi ... Appellants

Vs.

R.Kuppusamy

... Respondent

Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 30.08.2012 passed in A.S. No.79 of 2011, on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, upholding the decree and judgment dated 16.06.2011 passed in O.S. No.1592 of 2008, on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

¶14

For Appellants : Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian For Respondent : No appearance

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The appellants herein are the defendants in O.S.No.1592 of

¶17

2008, on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore,

¶18

filed by the respondent / plaintiff herein for the recovery of amount based Page 1 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

S.A.No.597 of 2013

¶21

on pronote debt said to be borrowed by the defendants principal amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per 100.

¶22

2.The contention of the defendant that he borrowed a loan, for

¶23

that the plaintiff obtained signature in the blank promissory note. Inspite of the repayment of the amount the plaintiff refused to handover the unfilled pronote. Subsequently, the disposal of the earlier suit in O.S.No.350 of 2000 he filed up one such promissory note and filed this vexatious suit.

¶24

3.Both the Courts below, on considering the evidence on record,

¶25

disagreed with the contention of the defendant and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

¶26

Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the trial Court, the

¶27

defendant preferred this appeal.

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

S.A.No.597 of 2013

¶31

5.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court and in appropriate places, their ranking in the present appeal would also be indicated.

¶32

6.At the time of arguments, there was no representation on the side of the plaintiff.

¶33

7.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are husband and wife for more than sixty years and they ready to settle the principal amount with interest at the rate of 9%. Admittedly,

¶34

the alleged borrowal from the date of 01.01.1997 till filing of the suit on 30.02.1999 for a principal amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest claimed by the plaintiff is 24% per annum. Hence, the total suit claim was Rs.51,480/Now as per the decree from the date of filing of the suit till passing of the decree, interest fixed by the Trial Court for the said amount is 12% and thereafter, 6% till realization. With regard to avoiding the interest portion

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

S.A.No.597 of 2013

¶38

alone the appellant raised the objections stating that the claim 24% interest is exorbitant at the rate of interest and the same is barred by Tamil Nadu Exorbitant Interest Act. On perusal of the services on either side, there was no agreement between the parties with regard to payment of interest at the rate of 24%. Therefore, without any terms or contract, the plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 24% as such is exorbitant one.

¶39

8.There was no representation on the side of the respondent.

¶40

9.The appellants herein are the husband and wife and they are senior citizens. The contest of the suit is of the year 1999, by reducing the rate of interest for the principal amount all these years the appellants fought before this Court and contending that they are not borrowed amount from the plaintiff. Further more, there was a suit between these parties in O.S.No.350 of 2000 filed by the same plaintiff and the said suit was also

¶41

dismissed which shows the conduct of the plaintiff harassing the defendants all these years.

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

S.A.No.597 of 2013

¶45

10.Considering all these facts as well as submissions made by

¶46

the appellants, the appellants are directed to pay the principal amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the borrowal till filing of the suit in the year 1999 and thereafter, 6% from the date of the suit till the deposit of the amount. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Subsequently, the suit is decree as follows :

¶47

(a) For the principal amount of Rs.30,000/- from the date of the borrowal till filing of the suit in the year 1999, 12% interest is awarded and from the date of the suit till deposit of the amount, 6% rate of interest is awarded, the time to deposit the amount is three months. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

09.09.2022

¶49

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

S.A.No.597 of 2013

¶53

mtl

¶54

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. mtl

¶55

¶56

1.The II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore. 2.The IV Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

¶57

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶58

S.A.No.597 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶59

09.09.2022

¶60

Page 6 of 6

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Kannan v. R.Kuppusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kannan v. R.Kuppusamy

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

K.Sivasamy Vs Kamalaveni

R.Loganathan Vs G.Babuji

Putalayee Ammal Vs Murugan

Pandurangan Vs Sivakami Ammal

Anbumani Vs S.Ramesh

L.Narayanan Vs K.Chella @ Selvaraj