[ 3494 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAO

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL Nos. 160of 2006and 131 of 2009

CITY CIVIL COURTAPPEAL NO: 160 OF2006

Between

,l.TheA.P.PowerGenerationCorporationLimited,(formerlyknownaSAPSEB)a

GovernmentCompanyregisteredunoertheCompaniesActl956'havingits

Regd. Office at Vidnyui Soudna, Somaiiguda, Hyderabad, Rep by its MD'

2. The Cheif Engineer ( Generation ), lV Flloor' Vidyuth Soudha' Somajiguda'

Hyderabad.

3. The Cheif Engineer, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station' Palwancha'

Khammam Dist.

...Appellants / Defendants

AND

Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 Riw section 96 of C-P'C-aggrieved by the

.trOgme;[inO D""r.e dated 27-01-2006 made in O.S.No.362 of 2002 on the file of

tne ii Aooitionat chief Judge, city civit court, Fast Track court, Hyderabad.

Lohman Castings Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the

Companies Act 1956, having its Regd. Office at 205, K.C. Towers, Marripalem,

VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam, Rep bv its MD, R. Rajinikanth S/o Siva Rama

Krishnaiah, Aged 50 yrs.

...Respondent / Plaintiff

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(CCCAMP. NO: 402 OF 2006)

Petition under Section

'151

CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of

execution of decree dt. 27-01-06 passed in OS No. 362102 on the file of the Xl

Additional Cheif Judge, CCC, (FTC) at Hyderabad pending disposal of the above

appeal.

l.A. NO: 2OF 2006lCCCAMP. NO: 584 OF 2006)

Between:

Lohman Castings Private Lrmited, a Company incorporated under the

Companies Act 1956, having its Regd. Office at 205, K.C. Towers, Marripalem,

VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam 530009, Rep by its MD, R. Rajinikanth S/o Siva

Rama Krishnaiah, r/o 205, KC Towers, Marripalem, VUDA Layout,

Visakhapatnam-530009.

...Petitioner / Respondent

AND

1. The A P Power Generation Corporation Limited, ( formerly known as APSEB )a

Government Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, havingits

Regd Office at Vidhyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82.

2. The Cheif Engineer ( Generation ), lV Flloor, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda,

Hyderabad-82

3. The Cheif Engineer, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Palwancha,

Khammam Dist.

... Res pondents/Petitioners

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the

interim order dt. 1 1-07-06 in CCCA MP No 402/06 in CCCA No 160/06'

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2007(CCCAMP. NO439oF 2007)

Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High court may be pleased. that. the above

p"titin ,n"V be posted under the caption for being mentioned before the his Lordship

'SriJusticeD.S.R.Var,aandSriJusticeD.AppaRaofornecessaryorders.

Petition under section

'151

of cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the

petitioner to withdraw a sum of Rs.34,22,2981- deposited in CCCA.No.160 of 2006 by

the respondents/appellants orders passed CCCAMP.No.56 ot 2007 in CCCA No.160 of

2006dated 2-4-2007.

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI V HARI HARAN

CCCA No: 131 of 2009

Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment and Deiree

Dated 27:01-2006 made in O.S.No.362 ol 2002 on the file of the Xl Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Fast Track Court, Hyderabad.

Between:

ANO

M/s Lohman Castings Private Limited, Registered Office at 205 R/o K.C.Towers,

Marripalem, VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam 530009. (Rep. by its Managing

Director, Ravarapu Rajanikanth, S/o.sivaramakrishnaiah, R/o.205, K.C.Towers,

Marripalem, VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam-530009

...Appellant / Plaintiff

1. Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited (TS Genco), Vidyut

Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82.

2. The Cheif Engineer (Generation), lV floor, Vidyut Soudha' Somajiguda,

Hyderabad-82.

3. The Cheif Engineer, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Palwancha'

Khammam District.

...Respondents / Defendants

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V HARI HARAN

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN

The Court made the following: COMMON JUOGMENT

HON'I}LE SRI JUSTICE K. I,AKSHMAN

ANt)

IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

CITY CIvIL COTJRT Al'PEAL Nos.l60 0F 2006 & 131 0F 2009

DATEOT -04-2026

Betwee n in CCC No.160 of 2006

The A.I']. Power Generation Corporation Limited

& 2 Others Appellants -

Defendants

Vs

Lohnran Castings Privatc L.imited . Respondent -

Plaintiff

I his Court made the iollorving

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Pcr Ilon'blc Sri Jus(icc K. t.akshman)

Heard Mr. V. Hari Haran, leamed Senior Counsel lor the

appcllant in CCCA No. I I I of 2009 & respondent in CCCA No. 160 of

2006 and Mr. Mohd. Adrran, leamed counsel for the respondents in

CCCA No.lll of 2009 & appellants in CCCA No.l60 ol'2006.

2. CCCA No. 160 of 2006 is filed by the defendants in O'S'

No.i62 of 2002, challenging the judgment and decree dated

2T.Ol.2006passedbvleamedXIAdditionatChiefJudge(fastTrack

Court). City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereas CCCA No' l 3 I of 2009

is filed by the plaintilT challenging the very sarne judgmcnt and decree

2

KL,J & VRKR J

CCCA No 150 oa20o5 & tlt of2009

to the extent of awarding interest

@

6%o per annum only on the

principal sum

3. The plaintiff in O.S. No.362 of 2OO2 is M/s. Lohman

Castings Private Limited, Visakhapatnam, while the defendants are

the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, its Chief

Engineer (Generation), Hyderabad and the Chief Engineer,

Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, palwanch4

Khammam District.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they were arrayed in O.S. No.362 of 2002.

5. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit (O.S. No.362 of 2002)

for recovery of total sum of Rs.6g,23,Zggl- (i.e.,Rs.15,20,905/_

towards principal & Rs.53,02,393/- towards interest) with costs and

interest at the applicable ratcs as per the provisions

of the Interest on

Delayed Payments to Small and Ancillary Indr.strial Undertakings

Act, 1993, against the defendants contending as under:

i) The plaintiff is a registered Small Scale Industrial

Undertaking. It carries on business of manufacturing of

various types of castings required for Thermal power

Stations.

l'

l

KL.J & VRKR.I

CCCA No 160 of20o6 & lll of2009

ii) Defcndant No.l was in need ol the said products and

accordingly used to place orders from 1983 onwards and

the plaintiff used to supply the samc'

iii) ln the said process, the defendants placed purchase orders

vjrle Exs.Al to Al3, which are dated 15 04 1993'

0s 08 1993. 21.04.t9s3, 04 01.1994, 19'02'1994,

10.08.1992. 27.11.1993, 27 11.1993. l1'08 1994'

04101991. 28.05.1994,31.10.1991, 06'061994,

07 09.1993 and 01.08 1994 and the ptaintilf supplied all

the material except the material covered by Ex'A10 and

purchase order No.CKK-/PZIDMNDN/20194'

iv) Even then, tlie defendants did not pay the entire value and

they are due and liable to pay an amount of

Rs. 15,20,9051 along with interest of lts'53'02'393/-

thereon, which is claimed under lnterest on Delayed

Paymcnts to Srnall Scale and Ancillary Industrial

Undertak ings Act, 1993

'

v) One of the l)irectors of the plaintilf' Mr' Gutta Kattaiah

Chowdary was found to have embezzled the money

worth Rs 45.00 takhs betonging to the defendants in

4

KL,J & \TKR,J

CCCA No t60of2m6& Bt of2om

collusion wirh their officials by producing fake letter of

authorization, for which the defendants instituted

criminal proceedings against the said Director and other

Officials. On the said pretext, the defendants are nor

paying the aforesaid amount.

vi) After exchange of legal notice and reply befween the

plaintiff and rhe delendanrs, the plaintiff filed the

aforesaid suit seeking the aforesaid amount against the

defendants.

6. Defendant No.2 filed a detailed written

the claim of the plaintiff contending as under:

material.

statement denying

i) The plaintiff quoted discrepant purchase orders, which would

bring out that the plaintiff itself is not certain about the supplies

made and the amounts due.

ii) The plaintiff was rlever regular and prompts in supplying the

iii) All the purchase orders are subject to terms and conditions

peculiar to each of them and, therefore, the plaintiff could not

have combined all the claims and filed a single suit. Thus. the

5

Kt-,, & VRKR.J

CCCA N,, I60 of2006 & lllol2009

suit is bad for Inis-joinder ol proper parties and lack of cause of

actton

iv) The defendants denied the suppll' of material against the

purchase orders excePt two.

v) They are not liable to pay an amount of Rs. 15.20,905/- and so

also the interest as claimed by the plaintiff.

vi1 flre suit is barred br limitatiorr.

vii) There is no cause olactton

vii) Trial Cou( has no tenitorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit

7. Basing or-r the aforesaid pleadings, leamed trial Court framed

the lollowing issues:

Whether thc plaintifl supplied materials to the

defendants under (15) purchase orders placed by the

defcndants (under document No.3 to l7 of the plaint)?

Whether the del'endants accepted such supplies valued

at Rs.15,20,9051 except the two under purchase order

No s. C KK./I'}2lD MA/DN 20/94 and Cl{lP 23 IDMA/ I 3 0/

93-94. dr.4-10-1994?

Whether it were the terms of the supply orders that

90% of the value of the goods supplied by the plaintiff

would be paid within 30 days of receipt of such goods

2

J

-r'-iJaL

,=:ffi

6

KL,J & VRKRJ

CCCA No I60 of20o6 & I] I of 2009

and bill, in duplicate and balance l0% would be paid

after expiry ofguarantee period of(lg) months?

4. Whether the defendants unreasonably withheld such

payments on the ground that Mr. Gutta Kattaiah

Chowdary who was also Director of other companies

such as M/s. Ramakrishna Engineering Company,

Pattancheruvu, M/s. Bright Engineering Company and

M/s. Vishwashanti Engineering Company, had

fraudulently withdrawn money lrom the defendants

and cheated them?

5. Whether the plaintiff is a Small Scale Industry entitled

to charge the recoverable amounts with interest as

contemplated under the partition

,,interest

on delayed

payment to Small Scalc and Ancillary Industrial

Undertakings Act 1993"?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled ro recover the suit

amount with costs and interests as prayed for?

7. Whether the suit is barred by time?

8. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of

action?

9. Whether there is cause of action?

10. To what relieP

8. During rrial, plaintiff examined its Managing Director as

PW.l and exhibited Exs.Al to 465. On behalf of the defendants, their

7

KLJ & VRKR.J

CCCA No 160 of2o06 & lll of2009

Divisional Engineer was examined as DW.l. During cross-

cxamination of PW.l, Exs.B I and 82 were marked.

9. On consideration of the entire evidence. both oral and

documentary and upon hearing both sides, vide judgment and decree

dated 27.0 1.20006. leamed trial Coun decreed the suit with costs for

Rs. I 5,20.905/- towards principal and Rs.53,02,393/- towards interest,

making a totat ol Ls.68 ,22,2981' with interest

@

60/o pet annum on the

principal amount liorn the date of suit till realization.

10. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree, the

def'endants filecl CCIIA No.l60 of 2006, on the lollowing grounds:

i) l rial Court erred in decreeing the suit without any proof of

supply ol material to the delendants as there is a specific

plcading in the written statement that the plaintiff has not

supptied the entire material covered by alt the purchase orders

exccpt two.

ii) l he trial Couft also erred in obsewing that the hurden lies on

thc dcfcndants that Mr. Gutta Kattaiah Chowdary withdrew

lheir amounts in excess of suppties as Director of Plaintiff

ConrPanl'

E

KL,J & VRKR.J

CCCA No 160 of206 & t3t ol.20o9

iii) Interest on Delayed payments

to Small Scale and Ancillary

Industries Undertakings Act, 1993, has no application to rhe

case of rhe plaintil^f.

iv)The plaintiff has nor produced any documentary proof with

regard to rate of interest i.e., prime

Lending rates by the State

Bank of India from time to time.

v) The interesr of Rs.53,02,393/- granted by trial Court is without

any basis.

vi) The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, for the reason that

the purchase orders are between 15.04.1993 and 01.0g.1994,

whereas the suit was filed on 24.09.2002. Thus, Section _

14 of

Limitation Act, 1963, has no apptication to the case on hand.

vii) Therefore, the trial Court ened in decreeing the suit, as such,

the same is tiable to be set aside.

I I. The plaintiff also filed an appeal vide CCCA No.l3l of

2009' challenging the impugned judgment

and decree to the extent of

awarding interest

@ 6%o per annum on the principal amount of

Rs. 15,20,905/- from the date ofsuit till realization instead of awarding

intcres( as per the provisions of the Interest on Delayed payments

to

9

KI,.J & VRKR,J

CCCA No 160 of2006 & lll of20o9

Srnall and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings 1993, on the

following grounds

i) The transaction between the plaintifl and the defendants is a

comrnercial rransaction regulated by the Statute, namely the

lnterest on l)elayed Payments to Small and Ancillary Industrial

Lhrdertakings Act, 1993 (for short 'Act, 1993'). as amended by

Act No.23 of 1998, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the

interest at the rate prcscribed under the said Act, 1993 till the

date of rcalizatiorl, but not

@

6%o per annum

ii) l'he said Act, 1993 is specifically enacted for the protection of

Small Scale and Ancillary Industries. The plaintiff is a Small

Scale lndustry,. The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

Dcve loprnent Act, 2007, Act No.27 of 2006 was rcplaced with

thc said Act. 1993.

'l'herefore,

it is entitled for the said interest

at I % tinre of prime lending rate charged by the State Bank of

India.

12. [n vicrv of thc aforesaid rival submissions. the following

points arise for consicleration by this Court:

Act,

\

-2

':.a"?a

l0

KL,J & VRKR.J

CCCA No 160of2006& l3l 012009

i) Whether the plaintiff supplied rhe marerial to the defendanrs.

and the deGndants received the same?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is enritled lor the suir claim?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is a Smalt Scale Industry, and if so, it is

entitled for the said interest at l% time of prime lending rate

charged by rhe State Bank of India?

iv) Whether the suit is baned by limitation

v) Whether the trial Court was right in decreeing the suit?

Point Nos.(i) &(ii):

13. As discussed supra, the main contention of the ptaintiff is

that it is a Private Limited Company registered in the year 19g2. It

deals with supply of various items of spare materials required for

Thermal Power Starions. Since the date of its inception, it had been

submitting tenders for supply of aforesaid material to the defendants at

Kothagudem and Ramagundam, and accordingly supplying the same

under various purchase orders issued by the defendants from time to

time satisfactorily. Defendant No. I issued fifteen (15) purchase

orders during the period between l99l and 1994 and the material

covered by the said purchase orders were supplied by the plaintiff.

The said purchase orders were marked as Exs.Al to Al4 except two

purchase orders dared 07.Og.lgg3 and 01.0g. 1994. Despite receipr of

KT,.J & VRKR,J

CCCA No 160 oi 2006 & Lll ol 2m9

thc said material covered b1' the aloresaid [5 purchase orders, the

dcfendants lailed to pay thc amount.

'fherefore,

the plaintiff filed the

aforesaid suit. Though leamed trial Clourt decreed the suit, awarded

less interest @ 6"k per attnutn from the date of suit till the date of

realization, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1993,

leamed trial Cou( laited to consider that the plaintiff company is a

Small Scale Induslrial tlnit registered u'ith the Department of

lndustries uile registration No.0l/20/03 164. dated 13.01.1984, i.e.,

prior to the suppll' oI the said material.

i) Whereas. it is contcnded by the delendants that the alleged

purchase orders rclate to the period between l9-08.1992 and

I1.08.1994, whereas the suit was filed on 24.09.2002. Therefore, the

suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is also contended by the

defcndants that Mr. (iutta Kattayya Chowdarv, Executive Director of

the plaintiff cornpan)', in collusion with othen, played fraud on the

defendants and drarvn thc amounts without supplYing material'

Thereforc, the defendants decided not to entertain any

purchase/contracts from the plairltiff till the outcome of the criminal

case.

'l'herefore,

the defendants are not liable to pay any amount'

.. ;i]gfl

t2

KI.J & VRKRJ

CCCA No 160 0f2006 & I ll of2009

much less the suit amount. Without considering the same, leamed

trial Court decreed the suit and, therefore, the same has to be set aside.

ii) As far as the plaintifls entitlement in respect of decretal

amount is concemed, perusal of record would reveal the defendants

placed fifieen (15) purchase orders as mentioned in paragraph No.2 ol

the judgmcnt of which serial Nos. I to 3 and 5 to 14 were marked as

Exs.Al to Al4. The purchase orders mentioned at serial Nos.4 and t5

were not marked. All the said purchase orders relate to the period

between 31.10. l99l (Ex.A12) and 11.08.199a (Ex.A9), whereas in

paragraph No.3 of rhe plaint, it is mentioned that thc said fifteen

purchase orders relating to the period between 19.0g.1992 and

I1.08.1994. According to the plaintiff, as per terms ofpurchase order,

the defendants have to pay 90%o of the amount due under each bill

within thirty (30) days after receipt of goods, and balance l0%o after

expiry of guaranteed period ol eighteen (lg) months. The total value

of the material supplied under the aforesaid 15 purchase orders is

Rs.15,20,905/-, and the defendants are due and liable to pay the said

amount. But, the defendants withheld the said amount on the ground

that the said Gutta Kattaiah Chowdary, one of rhe Directors of the

t3

KI-.J & \RKRJ

CCCA No.l60 ol2006 & ll I oI2009

plaintiff cornpany withdrew monies lrom defendant No.l in collusion

rvith its ernployccs and five others by using fake lefters of authority

(LOA) in the narnc ol three fictitious companies i.e., (i) M/s.

Ramakrislma Engineering Company; (ii) M/s. Bright Engineering

Company: and (iii)M/s. Vishwashanti Engineering Company, without

supplying rnaterial and thereby cheated the defendants

iii) Whereas. it is the case of the delendants that though they

arc duc and liablc to pay thc amount to the plaintifl, on account of

withdrau,al of anrount b1 the aforesaid Director in collusion with its

employecs and fir'e othcrs b1'using fake AOA and with regard to the

same, therc arc crirninal proceedings are pending and unless and until

the same are concludcd, they cannot pay the amount

iv) In this rcgard. it is apt to tlotc that the plaintiff company got

issued a notice dated 26.08.1996 vide Ex.Al4 to the defendants,

enclosing staternent of account shou'ing the anlount due against each

bill. Pursuant thereol' reply was sent by defendant No 2 vide Ex'Al5

lefter No.C(]GBllnl.C l57li96, dated 05 11 1996' which makes

significant and is extracted as under:

.:t

t4

KL,', & VRKRJ

CCCA No.160 0f2006 & lltof2009

"With reference to your letter dt.26.8.96, rhis is to inform

that release of anv pavments can't beconsidered at this

stase, since legal proceedings instihlted against this firm

are pending in the court of law...."

v) Ex.A52, letter addressed by the office of defendant Nos. I

aad 2, dated,O3.08.1996 to the plaintiff company also plays a vital role

to support the contention of the plaintiff. Therefore, the same is

rclevant and extractcd as follows:

"The LOA No.52194-95 of the Superintending Engineer,

Ramagundam Thermal Power Station for Rs.3,28,110-30

pending in this oflice will be released soon on finalisation

of K.T.P.S. Fake LOAs case by C.B.C.I.D, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad."

In view of the aforcsaid letters, it is clear that the defendants did not

deny the due amount by them to the plaintif{ and what all they stated

is with regard to the pendency of criminal proceedings against the

aforesaid Director ol plaintifls company, they cannot consider at that

stage. But, strangely, ignoring the aforesaid letters, in the written

statement filed by the defendants in the suit, took a contradictory

statement by denying their liability. Thus, the defendants cannot be

l5

KI-,J & VRKR,J

CCCA No 160 ol 2(x]6 & lll ol2009

pcrmitted to both approbatc and reprobate as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme (lourt in R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir'.

vi) As alrcady statcd above, as per thc plaint, the decretal

arnount pcrtains to the period liom 19.08. 1992 and I I .08. 1994 arising

out of said 15 purchase orders. The defendants examined DW. I on

their behalf before the trial Court. During cross-examination, he

categorically admittcd that the suit claim pcrtains to [5 purchase

orders placed by them r.vith the plaintiff company. Ex.A37, letter

No.CKK/P23IB.M:A/ D No l372l9'1, dated 05. 1 1 . 1994 addressed by

defendant No.2 to the plaintitT company reveals rvith regard to Ex.Al0

- purchase order dated 04.10 1993. In the said letter, defendant No.3

did not express anything ncgativell' and on the other hand he

mentioned that the purchase ordcr 1Ex.A l0) was tbund to be generally

in order and was approved. lt is apt to note that this letter is dated

05.1I.1994, wherea-s as per Ex.A64-charge sheet. the alleged

embezzlement of amount by one of the Directors of the plaintiff

company pertains to the pcriod lrom 21.06. 1994 to 22.09-1994. That

is to say, by the date of thc said lefter of defendant No.3, dated

05.11.1994, the defendants must have known about such

'.

(1992) 4 scc 6E3

l6

KI.' & VRKR,J

CCCA No 160 of 2006 & t3tol2m9

embezzlement of amount. In such circumstances, defendant No.3 did

not mention anything in his letter dated 05. I I . 1994 and on the other

hand approved the matcrial supplied vide Ex.pll- purchase order.

vii) Even orherwise, as per Ex.A54 letter dated 1g.01.1995

addressed by defendanr No.3 to the plainriff, its Engineers inspecred

the Cage bar and lound suitable for their works and accordingly

requested the plaintiff to despatch the material. As per charge sheet

(Ex.A64), the crimc was regisrered on I 3. I I . 1994 by

punjagutta

Police Station against rhe aforesaid Director of the plainriff company.

Thus, as on the date ol Ex.A54 letter, the aforesaid crime had already

been registered by the police upon reccipt of report given by the

defendants. Having knowledge about such alleged embezzlement of

amount, the defendants still continued the transactions with the

plaintiff company. But when comes to the payment of due amount,

the defendants take the shelter of embezzlement of amount by the

aforesaid Director of the plaintiff company and withheld the said

amount.

viii) Ex.Al8, legal norice dated t0.06.2002 got issued by the

plaiitiTT company rothe defendants requiring them to pay the

t7

KL,' & VRKRJ

CCCA No 160 012006 & l l l of 2009

afbresaid due amount shown in the statement enclosed thereto. The

delendants also gavc reply to the said notice vide Ex.A24, dated

0l .07.2002. In the said reply. it has been categorically admitted about

the supplv of material by the plaintilf to them. I{owever, they stated

that the Directon of the plaintifl company drawn an amount ol

Rs.45.00 lakhs in excess of the mate rial supplied under different

names and, therefore, they are not liable to pay any amount to the

plaintiff. They further stated that the claim was barred by limitation

and that the plaintiff is not entitled any interest under the Act, 1993

Perusal of bx.A24 reply does not disclose about the ernbezzlement o[

amount by the aforesaid Director of the plaintifl company

ix) With regard to the contention of defendants that they are not

liable to pay the amount on account of embezzlcment ol amount by

one of the Directors of the plaintiff companv, namely Mr. Gatta

Kattaiah Chowdary in collusion with its employecs and live others by

submitting fake and forged LOAs (B ills) puryorted to have been

prepared and sent lrom KTPS, Paloncha in defendant Nos'I and 2

office, for the purpose of rvrongful gain, perusal of record would

revcal that Ex.A64-charge sheet discloses that Mr. Gatta Kattaiah

3

.'<

l8

KL,J & VRKR,J

CCC^ No 160 of2(fi & l3l of2o09

Chowdary, one of the Directors of the plaintiff company, is shown as

accused No.2. [n the array of accused, the Investigating Oflicer did

not show him as the Director of lWs. Lohman Castings Private

Limited, Anakapalli and only shown him as "Gufta Kattaiah

Chowdary Sio Jaganmohan Rao, aged 35 yrs, Occ: Business, R./o

MIG-76, Autonagar, Visakhapatnam'. However in an un-numbered

paragraph No.3 of page No.2 ol the charge sheet, he is described as

the Director of the plaintiff company. The allegation levelled against

him is that he along with other accused conspired together in Srilatha

Lodge at Paloncha and decided to defraud huge amounts from APSE

Board by submitting fake bills (LOAs) ar Vidyut Soudh4 Hyderabad.

In pursuance of their conspiracy, they floated fictitious firms, IWs.

Ramakrishna Engineering Co., IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, showing

S.M. Reddy, a fake name of accused No.3 therein as the proprietor of

the said firm. Subsequcntly, accused Nos.l to 3 prepared and got

prepared fake bills (LOAs) No.79, 84 and254 purported to have been

prepared and sent by KTpS, paloncha

in favour of lv{/s. Ramakrishna

Engineering Co., and submitted at Vidyut Soudha on 21.06.1994,

21.06.1994 and 30.08.1994, respectively stating rhat the said firm

(Cfi6ny) hatl supplied certain materials Aluminium tsronz Wheels

r9

KI.J & \'RKR,J

CCCA No.l60 of2006 & Illor1009

against LOA Nos.79 and 84 and Main Shafts against LOA No.254 to

KTPS, Paloncha, though actually had not supplied any'thing by the

said firm and delraudcd an amount of Rs.28,62,793.80ps

x) Perusal of the entire charge sheet would disclose that the

Invcstigating Offlccr did not cxamine either the other Directors of the

plaintiff company or its employees as to whether the fraud ptayed by

accused No.2 - Gatta Kattaiah Chowdary, one of the Directors of the

plaintiff company. representing the plaintifl' company or in his

individua[ capacity, and not even cited them as rvitnesses. Thus, it is

clear that the said Gatta Kattaiah Chowdarl committed the offences

punishable under Sections - 468, 471 and 420 read with I 20-B ol tPC

in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the plaintilf company.

Had the said Director been committed thc aforesaid offences

representing the plaintiff company, the Investigating Officer certainly

would have made the plaintiff company also as atr accused in the said

crime. [n fact, after coming to know about the lraud played by Mr' G'

Kattayya Chowdary. thc ptaintiff company removed him from the post

ol Executive Director and Director of its Company in the

Extraordinary General Body Meeting held on 30.1 I 1994 and the

\

20

KL.J & IRKRJ

CCCA No 160of2006& lll of2m9

same was intimated to the delend ants vide Ex.A3 I letter dated

0l .12.1994. The fraud was allegedly committed by the Direcror of rhe

plaintiff company not on its behalfand on behalfofanother company.

The plaintiff company itself did not commit the fraud. The Director

was removed from the Directorship and share holder of plaintiff

Company after coming to know such fraud. This Court set aside the

circular blacklisting the plaintiff company, implying rhat the

defendants' action against the company was unjustified. Therefore, the

defendants' refusal to pay was unlawful, and the plaintiff company

was justified in pursuing legal remedies before filing the civil suit.

Thus, the defendants cannot evade the payment under the aforesaid 15

purchase orders by taking shelter of embezzlement of amount by the

aforesaid Director of the plaintifl company. Point Nos.(i) & (ii) are

answered accordingly.

Point No.(iv):

14. with regard to rhe contention of the defendants that the suit

claim is baned by Iimitation, they placed reliance on the decision in

Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. principal

Secretary,

2l

KL,J & VRKR J

CCCA No.160 oi 2iX)5 & l:]l of 2009

lrrigation Department2. Whereas, it is case of the plaintiflthat when

thc def-errdants issucd a Circular vide Ex.Bl dated 1 7.05 1995 not to

entertain any purchases/contracts fiom the plaintiff company till the

outstanding ol case lodged by them with police with regard to

enrbezzlement of funds is settled and finatized, they have filed writ

petition vlde Ex.A59, W.P. No.16000 of 1998 belbre this Court

challenging the said Circular. The said writ petition was dismissed

v,z/c 15.06.1998. Clratlenging the said order, the plaintiff filed W'A

No. 1063 ol 1998 and the same was allowed 25.01 .2002- Therefore, in

a good faith the plaintilf initiated all the aforesaid procecdings and as

such. limitation must be excluded for the said period The said

principle was laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v' West

Coast Paper Mills Ltd.3.

i) Perusat of record would reveal that in the said writ appeal'

thedefendantsfiledcounter(Ex.A60),whereinparagraphNo.3,the

defcndants speciftcally mentioned as under:

'. izootl I scc tov

'. AtR 2oo4 s(l 3o7o

o

22

KL,J & VRKR,J

CCCA No.160 of2006 & lltor200s

"....Since legal proceedings instituted against the firms are

pending in the court of Law, the release of any payments

cannot be considered at this stage."

ii) The aforesaid counter was filed on24.Oj.l99g. A Division

Bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.01 .2002 allowed the said writ

appeal quashing the said circular dated I 7.05. 1995. In the said order,

there is no observation with regard to exemption of limitation.

However, the Division Bench obscrved as under:

"All other contentions raised by the parties are left open to

be agitated at an appropriate stage."

iiD In the writ petition as well as writ appeal, one of the

contentions of the plaintiff is that the defendants are due and liable to

pay the suit amount under the aforesaid l5 purchase orders, moreover,

the relief sought in the writ petirion is not only challenging the said

Circular dated 17.05.1995, but also a direction for payment of

Rs.15,20,905/- with interest

@ 24% per annum after declaring the said

circular as illegal. Though the defendants denied the same in their

counter filed in the writ appeal on 24.O7.lggg, however, admitted that

thAsame cannot be considered at that stage as extracted above. After

.\

23

KL.J &

!!T(KR.J

CCCA No 160 of 2006 & ll I ot 2009

allowing the rvrit appeal on 25.01.2002, the plaintiff filed the suit on

24 09.2002

iv) ln view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the

plaintiff company srrpplied goods between 19.08.1992 and I I.0E.1994

and payment bccamc due thereafter. However, the defendants did not

deni the supply ol goods, but withheld payment because of the

allcgcd fraud committed by the aforesaid Director of the plaintiff

cornpany representing another floated company. The cause of action

continued until the legality of the defendants' circular was dccided in

thc writ proceedings. Therefore, limitation cannot be computcd

mercly fronr 1994. Time spent in writ and writ appeal proceedirtgs

must be cxcluded. I'he plaintiff company filed the writ petition in

199[t challenging thc defendants Circular dated 17.05.1995 that

blacklisted the plaintiff company and withheld payment. Under

Section - l4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the time spent prosecuting

another civil proceed ing in good faith and with due diligence in a

Court lacking jurisdiction or incapable of granting the relief must be

excluded when calculating limitation' The plaintiff company with a

boru f de belief approached this Court seeking relief of withholding

24

KL,J & IRKRJ

CCCA No. I 60 of 2m6 & I I I of 2009

payment due to blacklisting. The matter continued until the writ

appeal allowed setting aside the said Circular. Therefore, the entire

period from filing the writ petition in l99g until disposal of the writ

appeal must be excluded. Since the suit was filed on 24_07 -2002, it

falls within three years from the date when the writ appeal was

allowed on 25.01.2002. In view of the same, the suit is not barred by

limitation as contended by the defendants. point

No.(iv) is answered

accordingly.

v) In Consolidated Engineering Enterprisesr relied upon by

the defendants, the case pertains to the Arbitration and conciliation

Act, 1996. In the said case, whether the provision of Section l4 of the

Limitation Act would be applicable to an application submitted under

Section - 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting

aside the Award passed by the fubitrator. As per Section 34 (3) read

with the proviso makes it abundantly clear that the application for

setting aside the award on the grounds mentioned in sub_section (2)

will have to be made within three months. The period can further be

extended, on sufficient cause being shown, by another period of 30

d4ylbut not thereafter. Thus, as far as application, for setting aside

25

KI-.J & \RXR,J

ccc^ No t60 0t20{x & Ill of 2009

the award is concemed. the period of limitation prescribed is three

nronths r.r'hich can be extcnded by another period of 30 days, on

sulficient cause being shown to the satisfaction ofthe Court. Section -

29 (2) of thc Limitation Act inter a/ra provides that where any special

or local lau prescribes for any suit, appeal or application, a period ol

linritation is differcnt from the period of limitation prescribed by the

Schedule.

'['hc

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a specific

legislation excludes applicahility ofgeneral provisions. In the present

case. the suit rvas llled undcr the provisions ol CI'C. Therefore

Limitation Act, 196i applies. Thus, the said decision is inapplicable

to the facts of the present case

vi) In State of tlttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussaina relied upon

by the detendants, the suit hit was dismissed on the ground that it was

hit by res .judicata.

In the case on hand, though the plaintiff sought

trvo reliett in the writ petition with regard to quashing of the Circular

dated 17.05.1995 and consequential direction for payment of the

aloresaid amount, the said writ petition was dismissed ln the appeal

filed by thc ptaintiff, though the said circular was quashed, suit claim

was not granted. Horvever, it was observed that all other contentions

' (1977) scc 2 806

"."n*J*ii*'Ht1"

''''

raised bY the Parties

are leftopen to be agitated

at an appropriate

smge.

Thus, suit claim was not granted and there was no observatton

to

or hnality

with regard to the amount

due and the suit was

said amount,

the same would not hit by res judicata'

decision is also not applicable

to the facts ofthe present

case

filed for the

Thus, this

PointNos.(iii)&v):(

15. Leamed trial Court having considered

the entire evidence'

both oral and documentary'

decreed the suit and there is no enor in it'

However, leamed trial Court granted future rate of interest @

6% pet

annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till realisation'

Challenging

the said rate of interest' the plaintiff hled CCCA No'13 t

of 2009.

i) It is the specific contention of the ptaintiff that the

transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is a commercial

transaction regulated by the Statute, namely the Interest on Delayed

Payments to Small and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act' 1993 as

amended by Act No.23 0f 1998, as such, it is entitled t0 the interest at

fte qte of lY, time of prime lending rate charged by the State Bank of

27

...n r"Tulr"f ru#I1r,

",rr,

India fbr rhe reason

rhar the plaintiff

is a Small Scale Industry.

To

show lhar rhc plaintiff

is a Small Scale Industry,

it has filed Ex.A25,

certificate

of registration

as a Small Scale Industrial

Unit in the year

1984 The defendants

did not adduce any rebuftar

evidence

on the

said aspecr.

Therefore.

it can be said that the plaintiff

is a Small Scale

Industrial

Unit

ii)

entitled to

undcr:

Now, coming ro the rate of interest to which the plaintiff

is

The plaintiff filed srarement dated 22.06.2007

issued by

the State Bank of India, Anakapalle Branch, wherein the Bank

fumished the SBI prime

Lending Rates (SBAR) for the period from

01.04.2002 tilt 22.06.2007

The same is relevant and extracted

as

Datc w.e.f

iii) Section - 3 deals with 'tiabilitv of buver to make pavment'

The same

is relevant

and is extracted

as under:

S.No.

Rate ofinterest

0t 0t /04/2002

t I.50

02 0t/t t /2002 11.25

03. 05/05/2003

I 1.50

04.0t/0t/2004

10.25

05. 01/05/2006

10.75

06. 02/08/2006

I 1.00

07.27/12/2006 I1.50

08. 12.25

09

20/02/2001

09/04/2007 12.7 5

o

{)

28

KI.J & \NKR,'

cccA No. t60 0f 2006 & l3t of 2009

"3. Liability of buyer to make payment.-Where any supplier

supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the

buyer shall make payment therefor on or before the date agreed

upon between him and the supplier in writing 6r, where there is

no agreement in this behal[, before the appointed day:

' Provided that in no case the period agreed upon between

the supplier and the buyer in writing shall exceed one hundred

and twenty days from the day of acceptance or the day of

deemed acceptance."

iv) Section - 4 of the Act, 1993 deals with

,date

from which

and rate at which interest is payable' and the same is relevant and is

extracted as under:

"4. Dale from which and raae at which interest is payable.-

Where any buyer fails to make payment of the amount to the

supplier, as required under section 3, the buyer shall,

notwithstanding anlthing contained in any agreement between

the buyer and the supplier or in any law for the time being in

force, be liable to pay interest to the supplier on that amounr

from the appointed day or, as the case may be, from the date

immediatcly following the date agre€d upon, at one and a hall

time of Prime Lending Rate charged by the State Bank of India.

Explanation .-For the purposes of this section, "prime

Lending Rate" means the

prime

Lending Rate ofthe State Bank

of lndia rvhich is available to the best borrowers ofthe bank.,,

29

KL,' & VRKR,J

CCCA No 160of2006& lll of 2009

v) Section - 5 deals with 'liabitity of buyer to pay compound

interest'. I'he same is relevant and extracted as under:

"5. Liability o[ buyer to pay compound interest.-

Notrvithstanding anything contained in any agreement between a

supplier and a hurer or in anv law for lhe time being in force.

the buyer shall be liable to pay compound interest (with monthly

interests) al the rate mentioned in section 4 on the amount due to

the supplicr."

vi) Section - 6 deals with 'recovery of amount due'. The same

is relevant and extracted as under:

"6. Recovery o[ amount due.- (l)The amount due from a

buyer. together rvith the amount of interest calculated in

accordance with the provisions of sections 4 and 5, shall be

recoverable b1'the supplier from the buyer by way of a suit or

other proceeding under any larv for the time being in force.

(2) Not\'ithstand ing an)4hing contained in sub-section (1),

any pan) to a dispute ma1' make a reference to the lndustry

Facilitation Council lor acting as an arbitrator or conciliator in

respect of the rnalters referred to in that sub-section and the

provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of

1996 shall apply to such dispute as if the arbitration or

conciliation were pursuant lo an arbitration agreement refened

to in sub-section (l

) of section 7 of that Act."

)

l0

KL,J & VRKR.J

CCCA No. I

(O

of 2006 & I i I of 2m9

vii) In view of the above, Section - 4 ofthe Act, 1993 provides

that where a buyer fails to make payment to a supplier (a small-scale

industrial undertaking) within the prescribed period, the buyer is liable

to pay interest on the delayed amount. The rate of interest is

specifically fixed as l% times of the Prime Lending Rate (pLR)

charged by the State Bank of India. If the buyer fails to make

payment within this period, the buyer becomes statutorily liabte to pay

interest on the delayed amount. The interest is not discretionary but

mandatory. Normally, under Section - 34 of the Civil

procedure

Code, Courts may grant reasonable interest (often around 6%) after

the filing of the suit. However, the Act, 1993 is a Special Statute. It

overrides generaI provisions relating to interest.

viii) Where a special Law prescribes a specific rate, the Court

must follow that statutory mandate instead of applying the general

discretion under CPC. The Legislative objective behind the Act, 1993

is to protect Small Scale lndustrial Unis from financial hardship, to

ensure timely payments and to penalize buyers, who make delay

payment. Granting only 6%o interest defeats this purpose. In the

3I

I\L.J & vRKR.J

CCCA No 160 of2006 & lll of 2009

prcscnt case, the trzlnsaction is governed by thc lnterest on Delayed

Pavments to SrnalI and Ancillary lndustrial Undertakings Act, 1993.

ix) As per thc lnterest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and

Ancillary Industrial [-Jndertakings Act, 1993, as'amended by Act

No.2i of 199tt. the defendants being the buyers must pay the price

within the prescribcd period. If payment is delayed, statutory interest

accrues automaticalll,. 1'he liability is continuing in nature. Thus, the

plaintiff, being a Small Scale Industrial Unit, is entitled to interest at

I % times thc l)rimc Le nding Rate of the Statc Bank of India with

montlrly rests. The trial Court errcd in granting only 6oh interest,

which is contrary to the statutory mandate. I{ence, the decree should

be rrrodified to award intercst irr accordance with the provisions of the

Act. 1993 until realization of thc amount

x) In Shanli Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State

Elcctricity Boards, the facts of the case are that on 31.3.1992, the

Electricity Board placed an order for supply of material for Rs.l.22

Cores. The supplies were to be made benveen June and December,

1992. On 13.5.1992, another order was placed by the said Board for a

'. 1:oro; t9 scc suo

\

32

KL.J & VR(R.J

CCCA No 160of2o06& lll of2mS

total of Rs.32.49 lakhs and goods were to be made between January

and February, 1993. On 23.09.1992, the president of India

promulgated an Ordinance i.e., the Interest on Delayed

payments

to

Small Scale Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, 1992.

Subsequently, on 02.04.1993, the interest on the said Act, 1993 was

enacted and it was deemed to have come into force w.e.f . 23.09.1992.

Meanwhile, the said Company supplied the material on 04.10.1993.

On 05.03.1994, the entire paymenr of Rs.2.l5 Crores was received by

the said Company. On 10.01.1997, the said Shanti Conductors filed a

suit for recovery of Rs.53.68 lakhs claiming interest on delayed

payments. The said suit was decreed. The Board filed appeal before

the High Court of Gauhati. The Division Bench referred the marter to

full Bench. The Full Bench after framing certain questions answered

the reference holding that a suit for interest could be filed. Ac! 1993

is also applicable to contracts entered into prior to 23.09.1992. Interest

would be calculated Iiom 23.09.1992 till the payment is made to the

supplier. Then, the Board filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, wherein the Apex Court held that Ac! 1993 has no

retrospective application and that supplier has an accrued right to

clair) a higher rate of interest in terms of Act only with regard to sale

ll

(I-.J & VRKR,J

CCCA No !6'0of2006& lll of2009

agrccmcnts entered after the date of commencement of Act i.e.,

23.09.1992. Wlrereas, in the present case, the transactions covered by

I5 pulchasc ordcrs were between I9.08.1992 and I L08.1994 and the

supplies rnust have made even after 19.08.1992 only. That is to say,

by the datc ol' supplies made by the plaintill the Act, 1993 came to

lolcc. Furthcr. in the present case, the ptaintiffs clainred not only the

principal amount, but also interest. [n the aforesaid decision, the suit

was filed cxclusively for the interest accrued on delayed payments.

Therelbre. this decision would not render any assistance to the

delendants

16. For the firregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

vierv that the delendants failed to make out any case to set aside the

impugned judgment and decree, and on the other hand, the plaintiff

has cstablished its case for entitlement of interest as prayed by them

Point Nos.(iii) & (v) are answered accordingly.

17. l'he appeal filed by the defendants in C.C C.A. No.160 of

2006 is dismissed, confirming the judgment ancl decree dated

27.()1 .2006 passed by leamed XI Additional Chief Judge (fast Track

Coun). City Civil Court. Hyderabad. in O.S. No.362 of 2002, to the

\

To,

l4

KI.J & VRKRJ

CCCA No l(0of2o06& Ill of2o09

extent of suit claim of Rs.68,22,298/- and the costs thereon, whereas

the appeal filed by the plaintiff in C.C.C.A. No.l3 I of 2009 is allowed

setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2006 to the extent

of awarding rate of interest

@

6% per annum on the principal amount

of Rs.15,20,905/-. However, this Court grants the interest at the rate

of one and half times the Prime Lending Rare charged by the State

Bank of India lrom the dare of suit till realization on the principal

amount of Rs.15,20,905/-. In the circumstances of the case. there

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

in the appeals shall stand closed.

SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO

JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

One CC to Sri V Hari Haran' Advocate [OPUC]

astrack Court, HYderabad

One CC to Sri Mohammad Adnan, Advocate [OPU

Two CD CoPies

1

2

3

4

ABK /KA

hc,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710412026

COMMON JUDGMENT

CCCA. Nos. t60 of 2006 and '131 of 2009

DISMISSING THE CCCA No.160 of 2006 and

ALLOWING THE CCCA No.131 of 2009

c.

b+

1ti

e

S TATE

1 l JuN 20?$

i:

_-

-)

.//

'/

.\

:l

c

r)

*

!:s

6

\qL5\%

[ 34s41

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

ANO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL Nos. 1 60 of 2006 and 131 of 2009

CITYCIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 160 OF 2005

Between:

1. The A.P. Power Generation Corporatron Limited, ( formedy known as APSEB ) a

Government Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, havingits

Regd. Office at Vidhyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad' Rep by its MD.

2. The Cheif Engineer ( Generation ), lV Flloor. Vidyuth Soudha, Somaliguda'

Hyderabad.

3. The Cheif Engineer, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Palwancha'

Khammam Dist.

...Appellants / Defendants

AND

Lohman Castings Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the

Companies Act 1956, having its Regd. Office at 205, K.C Towers' Marripalem,

VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam, Rep by its MD, R. Rajinikanth S/o Siva Rama

Krishnaiah, Aged 50 yrs-

..Respondent / Plaintiff

Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 R/w section 96 of C,P.C aggrieved by the

Judgment and Decree dated 27 -01-2006 made in O S.No.362 ot 2002 on the file of

the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Fast Track Court, Hyderabad.

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of

appeat, the Judgment and Decree of the Case and the material papers in the case and

upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohammad Adnan, Advocate for the Appellants and

of Sri V Hari Haran, Advocate for the Respondent.

CCCA No:131 of 2009

Between:

ANO

M/s Lohman castinqs private.

Limrted, Registered office at 205 R/o.K.c.Towers.

Marripatem' VUDA Lavout visatnapatnzm-ssoo'riiilin"p.

bv its ManaoinoDirector Ravarapu Raiinikanth, S/o Sir"orrlr"irr"t,, il" ZOS..i i]iffirJ:yMarripatem, VUDA Laybut, Visakhapatnam_SSOdO9

"'"'"'

...Appellant / ptaintiff

I:',TrTT":|1[#IiS,.ilI1g;:

t"''"'ation Limited (rs Genco), Vidvut

Il:.,:i:j urttgineer

(Generation), lv rloor, Vidvut Soudha, somajisuda,

Hl.,i!flto,5,?,?,,1".,

Kothasudem Thermat power

Srarion, patwancha,

...Respondents / Defendants

Appeat under .".,inl 9^6.p.f g..p C.

_a-ggrieved

by.. the- Judgment and DecreeDared 27-O1'2006 made in.o.s No 362 0r zo'o"z on itre rrre of the xr Additionar chiefJudge City Civrt Court, rast rracr Co-u-rt-iv-jJiriril'.

ORDER This appeal,^comlng.

gn f9, hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappear, the Judgment and Dec_ree or tn" c*" i,itne-materiar papers in the case andupon hearing the arsuments of Sri V Hrri-;;;;:'A;;;cate

for the Apperant and of sriMohammad Adnan. Advocate for the n".ponJ"ni"

'"'""'

This Court doth Common Order and Common Decree as follows:

1. That the appeat filed by the defendants in C.C.C.A. No..l60 of 2006 is

dismissed, confirming the judgment

and decree dated 27 .O1.2006 passed

by the Xl Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civit Court.

Hyderabad, in O.S.No 362 ot 2002, to the extent of suit claim of

Rs.68,22,2991 and the costs thereon;

2 That the appear fired by the praintiff in c.c.c.A.No 131 0f 200g is arowed

settrng aside the

iudgment and decree dated 27.o1 .2006 to the extent of

awarding rate of interest

@ 6% per annum on the principar amount of

Rs.15,20,905t:

3

Y

1

2

3. That this Court grants the interes' at the rate of one and half times the

Prime Lendrng Rate charged by the State Bank of lndia from the date of

suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs.15,20,905/-;

4. There shall be no order as to costs.

SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO

JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. FaTrack Court, Hyderabad

Two CD Copies

To,

ABK /KA

Prnc,

I

t

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710412026

COMMON DECREE

CCCA. Nos. 160 of 2006 and '13'l of 2009

DISMISSING THE CCCA No.160 of 2006 and

ALLOWING THE CCCA No.131 of 2009

t(c{

e

eTFo

4

o

&

Ih +H

.S"

-'?

+

,9.

\