Full Judgment Text
2012:BHC-OS:10639-DB
app-349-12.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL (LODGING) NO.349 OF 2012
IN
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 958 OF 2010
Mahanagar Gas Limited
Having its office at
MGL House, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai400 051 ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Babulal Uttamchand & Co.
108, Shyamkamal A.Agarwal Market
Tejpal Road, Vile Parle,
Mumbai400 057 ... Respondent
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.A.Bhalwal i/by M/s. Vyas
& Bhalwal for the appellant.
Mr.Chidanand Kapil i/by Ms.shilpa Kapil for the respondent.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. &
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Chief Justice)
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9
March 2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the arbitration petition
of the appellant herein under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 with the only modification of reducing the future rate of interest
from 18% to 12% from the date of the award (5 March 2010) till realisation
on the claim as well as the counterclaim.
2. The appellant awarded the respondent (the claimant) the work
of project management and construction of pipeline network for domestic
supply of natural gas in the area of Santacrtuz by work order dated
SRK 1 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
12 October 2002. The said work was to be completed within three years
from the date of letter of acceptance. The work was valued at Rs.3.87
crores. The respondent, accordingly, mobilised the requisite resources and
made investment. The respondent was also required to enter into the
agreement with the customers for providing gas connections.
3. The appellant failed to provide gas to the customers though the
pipeline work was completed by the respondent. The delay in supply of gas
for about 18 months resulted in nonpayment by the customers and
consequent nonpayment for the work done to the respondent. The
respondent contended that on account of the breach of terms of contract by
the appellant, the full work could not be completed in the stipulated period.
The respondent raised claims before the Arbitrator. The appellant also filed
counterclaims. After the pleadings were completed, one witness was
examined by either party. The claims made by the respondent herein before
the Arbitrator were as under:
(i) Work done not paid Rs. 35,00,000
(ii) Refund of security deposit Rs. 20,00,000
(iii) Material procured but not utilized Rs. 4,00,000
(iv) Supply of copper pipe Rs. 3,74,680
(v) Delay in payment Rs. 98,748
(vi) Loss of Profit Rs. 26,70,726
(vii) Less of Advance Rs. 20,00,000
(viii) Loss of infrastructure Rs. 28,00,000
(ix) Underutilization of Overheads Rs. 69,44,072
(x) Underutilization of Machinery Rs. 8,01,239
(xi) Underutilization of labour Force Rs. 85,46,575
(xii) Loss of business opportunities Rs. 26,70,797
(xiii) Cost Rs. 5,00,000
Rs.3,33,06,837
(xiv) Interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount claimed.”
SRK 2 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
4. On the other hand, the appellant also made counterclaims
under the various heads. It is not necessary to refer to all the heads as the
Arbitrator made the award with the counterclaim only for a figure of
Rs.7,17,445/ under the head of material reconciliation penalties and
recoveries and no amount was awarded under the other heads.
5. It is the case of the claimant that after about 60 hearings took
place, at the meeting of the Arbitral Tribunal on 7 August 2008, the parties
agreed to sit together to arrive at the agreed figure of the balance amount
payable to the claimants on account of the work done but not paid for
(Claim No.1) and the amount payable from the claimant to the respondent
on account of material reconciliation recoveries (counterclaim No.18). On 5
January 2009, the learned counsel for the parties filed jointly signed
statement alongwith detailed working informing the Arbitral Tribunal that
both of them had arrived at an agreed figure of Rs.35,37,176/ as the
amount payable to the claimant from the appellant on account of work done
but not paid (Claim No.1) and at a figure of Rs.7,17,445/ as the amount due
from the claimant on account of the recovery against Material Reconciliation
Account (Counterclaim No.18) and filed the jointly signed statement which
was taken on record. The Arbitral Tribunal accordingly, made the award for
the aforesaid amounts in favour of the respective parties. The consent terms
specifically provided that the same were without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties qua all other claims.
6. Learned Arbitrator Dr. Justice B.P. Saraf (Retd.) acting as the
sole arbitrator ultimately made the following award after giving reasons:
“30. In the premises, I make the following award:
Claims of the Claimant:
(i) The Respondent do pay to the Claimant a sum of
Rs.35,37,176/ (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Thirty Seven
Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six only) as agreed
between the Claimant and the Respondent, on account of
work done but not paid with interest calculated thereon at
SRK 3 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
st
the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1 January 2006
to the date of the award.
(ii) The Respondent do pay to the Claimant a sum of
Rs.25,23,873/ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty Three
Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Three only) on account
of loss of profit with interest calculated thereon at the rate
st
of 12 per cent per annum from 1 January 2006 to the
date of the award.
(iii) The Respondent do pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.
26,04,129/ (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Four Thousand One
Hundred Twenty Nine only) on account of costs of the
arbitration.
(iv) The Respondent do pay to the Claimant further interest on
the sum directed to be paid to the claimant by this award
at the statutory rate of 18 per cent per annum as set out
in section 31(7)(b) of the Act from the date of the award to
the date of payment.
Counterclaims of the Respondent
(v) The Claimant do pay to the Respondent a sum of
Rs.7,17,445/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventeen Thousand
Four Hundred Forty Five only), as agreed between the
Claimant and the Respondent, on account of Recovery
against Material Reconciliation Account with interest
calculated thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum
st
from 1 January 2006 to the date of the award.
(vi) The Claimant do pay to the Respondent further interest on
the sum directed to be paid by this award to the
Respondent at the statutory rate of 18 per cent per annum
as set out in section 31(7)(b) of the Act from the date of the
award to the date of payment.”
7. The learned Single Judge has held that the award does not call
for any interference except the modification made as regards the rate of
interest. The learned Arbitrator had awarded further interest at the rate of
18% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. The
learned Single Judge has reduced the said rate to 12% per annum as
indicated hereinabove.
SRK 4 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award
as confirmed by the learned Single Judge and has made the following
submissions:
(i) The claimant had not led any evidence in support of the
claim for loss of profit. Relying on the decision of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Mazgaon Dock Ltd. v. Offshore
Hookup and Construction Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Arbitration
Petition No.295 of 2007) decided on 20 August 2011), it is
contended that the Arbitrator should have drawn an adverse
inference against the respondent for withholding the best
evidence which was within his special knowledge. It is obvious
that before submitting his offer pursuant to the tender notice,
the respondent must have worked out the figure and it was for
the respondent to lead evidence as to what was the margin of
profit expected by him while submitting his offer. But that
evidence was not led.
(ii) The Arbitrator had awarded costs at 90% of the fees of the
Arbitrator and the fees of the Technolegal Consultant and
advocate and other expenses aggregating to Rs. 28,93,476/. It
is submitted that since the respondents had made a total claim
of Rs.3.33 crores but the learned Arbitrator awarded only
Rs.35.37 lakhs under the first head of work done but not paid
and Rs.26.70 lakhs under the head “Loss of Profit”, the learned
Arbitrator ought not to have awarded 90% of the cost. It is
submitted that the learned Arbitrator having made the award to
the extent of only about 20% of the total claim of the
respondent, the costs should not have been awarded at 90%.
SRK 5 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
(iii) As regards interest, the Arbitrator erred in awarding
interest on the amount of Rs.35,37,176 which was an agreed
amount between the parties and, therefore, on such agreed
amount, no interest can be awarded from the date of the claim
till the date of the award.
(iv) It was also contended that no interest could have been
awarded on the amount of loss of profit because that amount
was ascertained for the first time while making the award.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has
opposed the appeal and submitted that as per the settled legal principles,
this Court would not interfere with the arbitration award by sitting in appeal
over such award and by reappreciating the evidence on record. It is
submitted that while filing the consent terms of 2 January 2009, it was
made clear by the parties that the settlement for the respondent's claim
under item No.1 work done and not paid at Rs.35,37,176/ was without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties qua the other claims
and, therefore, the respondent was not debarred from making any other
claim including the claim for cost and interest on other amount.
10. As regards the claim under the loss of profit, the learned
counsel for the respondent claimant has relied on the decision of the Apex
Court in Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 500 and
MSK Projects India (JV) Limited v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2011) 10
SCC 573. It is submitted that the claim made by the contractor for recovery
of amount of damages as expected profit out of contract cannot be
disallowed on the ground that there was no proof that he suffered actual
loss to the extent of amount claimed on account of breach of contract.
SRK 6 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
11. As regards the challenge to the amount under the head “costs”,
the learned counsel for the respondentclaimant submitted that the matter
was heard by the Arbitrator at as many as 71 sittings and the appellant
agreed to pay the amount under Claim No.1 quantified at Rs.35.37 lakhs
only after about 60 sittings. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellant
having allowed the arbitration sittings to be held as for many as 60 sittings
before agreeing to pay for the work done but not paid, the learned Arbitrator
was justified in awarding costs at the rate of 90% of the total costs towards
the fees of the Arbitrator and the fees of the Technolegal Consultant and
advocate fees.
12. Before we proceed to examine rival contentions we must keep in
mind the scope an of appeal under the Arbitration Act. In the appeal, the
order passed by learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Act refusing to
interfere with the award of the learned Arbitrator, is challenged. Scope of
section 34 of the Act is well settled. It is on very limited grounds that the
award of Arbitrator can be set aside by the Court under Section 34.
The scope of an appeal from order passed under section 34 of the Act will be
governed by the same limitations imposed on the exercise of the power
under section 34, if not, more stringent.
13. The first controversy is as regards the 10% damages awarded to
the Respondent. According to learned counsel for the Appellant the
Respondent did not produce on record any material to show how he is
entitled to the damages on account of loss of profit. According to the learned
counsel loss of profit and it's quantum cannot be presumed and the party
must prove it by producing adequate evidence on record. Reliance is placed
on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Mazgaon Dock Limited
(supra) to contend that since no evidence was produced by the claimant,
adverse inference ought to have been drawn and the learned Single Judge
SRK 7 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
ought to have remanded the matter to the Arbitrator on this issue. Learned
counsel urges that we should remand the matter to the learned Arbitrator,
to decide this issue. This submission is countered by the learned counsel
for Respondent by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court which lay
down guidelines for computing the loss of business when breach of contract
is alleged.
14. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Mazgaon
Docks (supra) was rendered in the facts of that case. In that case the claim
was made by subcontractor. As per the clause provided in the agreement
therein, the sub contractor was not entitled to damages for breach of the
contract. In the present case there is no such negative clause and a
fundamental breach of the contract is alleged. These distinguishing facts
have been noticed by the learned Single Judge who has rightly come to the
conclusion that the ratio rendered in Mazgaon Docks case (supra) was not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. In the present case the contract which was awarded in favour of
the Respondent was in respect of laying down pipelines for providing gas to
the consumers. The Respondent accordingly mobilized the resources and
made substantial investment. The respondent entered into agreement with
the customers for providing gas connections. For about 18 months the
appellant did not provide gas to the customers through the pipelines
constructed by the respondentclaimant. Providing gas through the pipelines
was the fundamental feature of the agreement between the parties. This
basic clause of the contract was breached by the appellant. Once such
fundamental feature is breached, there would be justification for providing
to the aggrieved party arise and for that purpose provisions of the Contract
Act come into operation. The contractor is entitled to claim damages for loss
of profit which he is expected to earn by undertaking the works contract,
and such claim of expected profits is admissible once improper breach of
SRK 8 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
contract is demonstrated. The Apex Court in the case of A.T. Brij Paul Singh
1
v. State of Gujarat, observed: (SCC pp.6465, paras 1011)
“What would be the measure of profit would depend
upon facts and circumstances of each case. But that there
shall be a reasonable expectation of profit is implicit in a
works contract and its loss has to be compensated by way of
damages if the other party to the contract is guilty of breach
of contract cannot be gainsaid. In this case we have the
additional reason for rejecting the contention that for the
same type of work, the work site being in the vicinity of each
other and for identical type of work between the same
parties, a Division Bench of the same High Court has
accepted 15 per cent of the value of the balance of the works
contract would not be an unreasonable measure of damages
for loss of profit.
Now if it is wellestablished that the respondent was
guilty of breach of contract inasmuch as the rescission of
contract by the respondent is held to be unjustified, and the
plaintiffcontractor had executed a part of the works
contract, the contractor would be entitled to damages by way
of loss of profit. Adopting the measure accepted by the High
Court in the facts and circumstances of the case between
the same parties and for the same type of work at 15 per
cent of the value of the remaining parts of the work contract,
the damages for loss of profit can be measured."
This judgment is followed in the case of
Dwarkadas V/s.State of MP and
2
another . The Apex Court in MSK Projects India (JV) Limited V/s.State of
3
Rajasthan and Another , observed as under:
38. In common parlance, "reimbursement" means and implies
restoration of an equivalent for something paid or expanded.
Similarly, "Compensation" means anything given to make the
equivalent. (See: State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas and
Ors. MANU/SC/0063/1969 : AIR 1969 SC 634; Tata Iron and
Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. ; Ghaziabad
Development Authority (Supra); and H.U.D.A v. Raj Singh Rana,
(Supra). However, in Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Anr. MANU/SC/0088/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 1031, it was held
that a claim by a contractor for recovery of amount as damages
1 (1984) 4 SCC 59
2 (1999)3 scc 500
3 (2011)10 SCC 573
SRK 9 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
as expected profit out of contract cannot be disallowed on
ground that there was no proof that he suffered actual loss to
the extent of amount claimed on account of breach of contract.
39. In A.T. Brij Paul Singh and Ors. v. State of Gujarat,
MANU/SC/0081/1984 : AIR 1984 SC 1703, while interpreting the
provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972, this
Court held that damages can be claimed by a contractor where
the government is proved to have committed breach by
improperly rescinding the contract and for estimating the
amount of damages, court should make a broad evaluation
instead of going into minute details. It was specifically held that
where in the works contract, the party entrusting the work
committed breach of contract, the contractor is entitled to claim
the damages for loss of profit which he expected to earn by
undertaking the works contract. Claim of expected profits is
legally admissible on proof of the breach of contract by the
erring party. It was further observed that what would be the
measure of profit would depend upon facts and circumstances of
each case. But that there shall be a reasonable expectation of
profit is implicit in a works contract and its loss has to be
compensated by way of damages if the other party to the
contract is guilty of breach of contract cannot be gainsaid.
40. In B.S.N.L v. Reliance Communication Ltd.
MANU/SC/1000/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 394 , this Court held as
under:
“53. Lastly, it may be noted that liquidated damages
serve the useful purpose of avoiding litigation and promoting
commercial certainty and, therefore, the court should not be
astute to categorise as penalties the clauses described as
liquidated damages.”
41. This Court further stated in Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd. (Supra):
“64. ...This section is to be read with Section 74 , which deals
with penalty stipulated in the contract, inter alia (relevant for
the present case) provides that when a contract has been
broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be
paid in case of such breach, the party complaining of breach is
entitled, whether or not actual loss is proved to have been
caused, thereby to receive from the party who has broken the
contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so
named. Section 74 emphasizes that in case of breach of
contract, the party complaining of the breach is entitled to
SRK 10 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
receive reasonable compensation whether or not actual loss is
proved to have been caused by such breach.”
16. Thus, it is clear from the dicta of the Apex Court reproduced
above that the claim for damages by a party is admissible once it
demonstrates that the other party has committed breach of the
fundamental terms of the contract. In the Government contracts which are
undertaken by the contractor for earning profits, it is implicit that once
there is breach, the object of earning profit is nullified. Once such
fundamental breach occurs, the party is presumed to have suffered loss of
profit. In the case of MSK Project India (supra) the Apex Court has
categorically laid down that the claim by contractor for damages as expected
profit out of contract, cannot be disallowed on the ground that there was no
proof that he has suffered actual loss. The Apex Court in the case of A.T.
Brij Paul Singh V/s.State of Gujrat , held that in case of Government contract
where the Government commits breach by improperly rescinding the
contract the Court should carry out a broad evaluation regarding the
damages instead of going into minute details. In the present case the
Respondent had made a claim for loss of profit. The Arbitrator was not
expected to go through the minute details to ascertain the exact figure of
damages. The Arbitrator applied rough and ready formula to arrive at the
damages payable. Once the Arbitrator arrives at a figure, even by
guesswork, the Court may not interfere with it, if it is not unreasonable.
17. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd.Salamatullah
4
V/s.Government of AP , while dealing with the grant of damages in the case
of breach of contract, held that the appellate Court was not justified in
interfering with the quantification of damages, even if they were based on
guesswork. In the present case the Arbitrator has granted 10% damages
towards the loss of profit. We do not intend to interfere with the award of
4 (1977) 3 SCC 590
SRK 11 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
grant of damages. Not only it appears reasonable to us in facts of the
present case, we must also bear in mind the scope of appeal under section
37 of the Arbitration Act.
18. The second objection of the learned counsel for appellant was
regarding payment of costs. The learned Arbitrator awarded Rs.26,04,129/
on account of costs of arbitration to be paid by the Appellant. Learned
counsel for the appellant makes a grievance that many reliefs claimed for by
the Respondent were not granted by the Arbitrator and in fact the
substantial claim of Rs.35,37,176/ was arrived at by an agreement between
the parties. Thus, learned counsel contended that the costs were excessive.
Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that though the substantial
claim was arrived at by way of consensus between the parties, the
concession was given by the appellant only after about 60 sittings. He
submits that it is not as if in the preliminary stages itself, that the
appellant had conceded to the claim.
19. We have been informed that around 71 sittings of arbital
tribunal took place. In that context, if the amount of Rs.26,04,129/ is
spread over 71 sittings, the resultant cost awarded per sitting is not
exorbitant or unreasonable. The learned Arbitrator also took note of the fact
that the appellant itself had claimed an amount of Rs.19 lakhs towards the
fees of the advocates alone. However, we do find some substance in the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that once most of the
claims of the respondent were rejected and the appellant had agreed to
settle the substantial claim, the learned Arbitrator was not justified in
directing the appellant to pay 90% of the costs. Even if the share of the
appellant towards payment of cost is pegged down to 70% and the figure is
rounded off, it would come to about Rs.20 lakhs. We propose to reduce the
costs payable by the appellant to the respondent to Rs.20 lakhs.
SRK 12 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
20. The last contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was in
respect of payment of interest. It was contended that the learned Arbitrator
ought not to have awarded interest on the amounts awarded from the date of
the claim till the award.
21. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that since the
parties arrived at the settlement on 5 January 2009 agreeing that the
amount of Rs.35,37,176/ was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent
for item (i) – “work done not paid”, there was no justification to grant interest
from 1 January 2006.
It is not possible to accept the above submission. In the first
place, when the parties arrived at the above agreement on 5 January 2009,
the respondentclaimant had made it more than amply clear that the
settlement for the respondent's claim under item (i) “work done not paid” at
Rs.35,37,176/ was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
parties qua the other claims. The other claims included claim no.(xiv) for
interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amounts claimed. Hence, the
learned Arbitrator was justified in granting interest on the amount of
Rs.35,37,176/ under item (i) “work done not paid” for the period from the
date of the claim till the date of the award, i.e. from 1 January 2006 till 5
March 2010.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that
when the claimant has been awarded compensation for loss of profit on the
basis of guess work and not on the basis of any evidence led by the claimant
before the learned Arbitrator, no interest should have been awarded from the
date of the claim till the date of the award.
23. Learned counsel for the respondentclaimant, however, opposed
the above submission and contended that loss of profit occurred when the
SRK 13 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
contract was breached and while passing the award the learned Arbitrator
only recognized this fact. It was not as if the loss of profit occurred when it
came to be computed by the learned Arbitrator.
24. We are of the view that while the submission made by each
party has some merit, the matter needs to be examined with some
circumspection. Though ordinarily an arbitration award would not deserve
to be interfered with merely because another view is possible, in the facts
and circumstance of the case it may not be unreasonable not to award
interest from the date of the claim till the date of the award giving
compensation for loss of profit when the claimant had not led any evidence
such as calculations made at the time of submitting the tender. On the
other hand, where the claimant has led evidence before the learned
Arbitrator to quantify the compensation for loss of profit upon wrongful
termination of the contract, the learned Arbitrator should award interest
from the date of the claim till the date of the award. Since, in the facts of
the present case, the claimant had not led specific evidence and the learned
Arbitrator has awarded compensation for loss of profit on the basis of mere
estimates, we are of the view that interest should not be awarded to the
claimant on the amount of compensation for loss of profit from the date of
claim till the date of award. In any case, we make it clear that the claimant
is entitled to interest on the amount of compensation for loss of profit from
the date of award till the date of payment.
25. As regards the future rate of interest, i.e. interest for the period
from the date of the award till the date of payment, it has already been
reduced by the learned Single Judge from 18% to 12% per annum. In the
absence of any cross objection, there is no occasion for considering this
aspect.
26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the
award made by the learned Arbitrator does not call for any interference
SRK 14 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::
app-349-12.sxw
except the following modifications:
i) The amount on account of costs to be paid to the
respondentclaimant shall be Rs.20 lakhs.
ii) As far as the interest is concerned, the same shall be
calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
the claim till the date of the award on the principal
amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal i.e. Rs.35.37
lakhs for the work done and not paid under claim No. (i)
and also at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
the award till the date of payment on the principal
amount of Rs.35.37 lakhs.
iii) Interest shall be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from
the date of the award till the date of payment on the
amount of Rs.25.23 lakhs under the head “loss of profit”,
and not for any period prior to the date of the award.
iv) As regards the future rate of interest, the learned Single
Judge has already reduced the rate of interest from 18%
to 12% and that part of the judgment stands confirmed.
The appeal is accordingly partly allowed only to the aforesaid
extent.
CHIEF JUSTICE
N.M. JAMDAR , J .
SRK 15 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:31:32 :::