Appellate Court Exercises Discretionary Powers to Increase Interest Rate from 15% to 18% Per Annum
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Circuit Bench at Kolhapur has dismissed the Second Appeal filed by M/s. Rameshkumar Hanjarimal Rathod, thereby affirming the decision of the lower courts to enhance the interest rate from 15% per annum to 18% per annum in a suit for recovery of money. The case, titled M/s. Rameshkumar Hanjarimal Rathod v. Smt. Kantabai Lalchand Gandhi, revolved around the recovery of Rs. 3,05,045/- with fluctuating interest rates, originally agreed upon at 18% per annum according to a balance confirmation letter issued by the defendant in 1999.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandesh D. Patil, emphasizes the discretionary powers vested in appellate courts under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Despite the absence of a cross-objection or appeal by the plaintiff, the appellate court exercised its authority to adjust the interest rate based on the merits of the case, thereby providing relief to the respondent.
The appellant challenged the reliance on the testimony of the power-of-attorney holder, arguing a lack of personal knowledge regarding the transactions. However, the court validated the examination of the power-of-attorney holder, noting that he possessed personal knowledge of the facts in issue. This decision aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court, which permit such testimonies when the holder is adequately informed about the transaction details.
Another point of contention was the suit's limitation period. The appellant argued that the suit was time-barred under Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the courts found the suit within the limitation period, as the demand was made in 1999, followed by a refusal, leading to the suit's institution in 2000.
Justice Patil's judgment further clarifies the scope of Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing that they are confined to substantial questions of law. The court found no such substantial question warranting interference in this instance, as the findings of the lower courts were deemed proper and non-perverse.
This judgment underscores the appellate court's capacity to grant relief in line with the case's requirements, reinforcing its role in ensuring justice beyond procedural constraints. The dismissal of the Second Appeal marks a reaffirmation of judicial discretion in determining equitable outcomes.
Bottom line:-
The appellate court is empowered under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to grant relief to a respondent even in the absence of a cross-objection or appeal, provided the case warrants such relief.
Statutory provision(s): Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Limitation Act, 1963 Article 22, Evidence Act, 1872, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 100
