JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. (Oral) - The defendant has approached this Court through the present regular second appeal. 2. A suit for recovery of Rs. 22,000/- was filed by plaintiff-respondent M/s Mahalakshmi Rice and General Mills. It was claimed by the plaintiff-firm that it had entered into two agreements for shelling paddy with the Food Corporation of India on November 24, 1973 and March 22, 1974 on the terms and conditions specified in the agreements. The agreements inter alia provided that the firm was liable to pay storage charges for late lifting of paddy and late delivery of rice at the rates specified in the agreements. The plaintiff-firm furnished the requisite bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lacs and a cash security for the due performance of the agreements. It was claimed by the plaintiff-firm that after settlement of the accounts in respect of these two agreements, the defendant-Corporation released the bank guarantee and refunded the cash security of Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiff-firm on June 30, 1975. 3. It was further claimed by the plaintiff-firm that similar agreements for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 were also entered by the firm with the defendant-Corporation. The plaintiff-firm, accordingly, deposited cash security etc. as required. It was claimed that the accounts of the parties were settled and whatever was found due to it under the agreement was to be paid to the firm. However, instead of refunding the security of Rs. 30,000/-, the defendant-Corporation paid only Rs. 14,622.29 to the plaintiff-firm. It was learnt on enquiry that a sum of Rs. 15,290.06 has been with-held from the security on account of "less recovered storage charges" in respect of the agreement for the year 1973-74. Thus it was claimed by the plaintiff-firm that defendant-Corporation had failed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,290.06, despite notice. Accordingly, the present suit was filed for recovery of the aforesaid amount alongwith interest. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant-Food Corporation of India. The execution of various agreements with the plaintiff-firm was admitted. It was also admitted that amount due to the firm under the agreement for the year 1975-76 was paid, but the security was not refunded as the accounts were to be settled and was subject to any claim of the Corporation under the audit objection. The execution of various agreements with the plaintiff-firm was admitted. It was also admitted that amount due to the firm under the agreement for the year 1975-76 was paid, but the security was not refunded as the accounts were to be settled and was subject to any claim of the Corporation under the audit objection. The Corporation claimed that the aforesaid action of the Corporation was covered under Clause (viii) of the terms and conditions of the tender. On that basis, the defendant-Corporation claimed that since the plaintiff-firm had accepted the payment of balance amount of Rs. 14,622.29 without any objection, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff-firm was without any basis. 5. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-firm. 6. The plaintiff-firm took up the matter in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence. On such re-appraisal, the learned First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that it was fully proved on the record that the agreements claimed by the plaintiff-firm in the pleadings were duly executed between the parties and as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreements, the plaintiff-firm was entitled to the refund of security furnished by it for due execution of the agreements. It was also held that the amount in question has wrongly been retained by the defendant-Corporation. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff-firm was decreed alongwith an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. 7. The defendant-Corporation has felt aggrieved and has approached this Court through the present regular second appeal. 8. I have heard Sh. Rajesh Garg, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant and Sh. Survir Sehgal, the learned counsel for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 9. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the interest @ 12% awarded by the District Judge was excessive and there was no contract between the parties for payment of any interest on unpaid amount. 10. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel, I do not find any substance in the same. 11. The findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the amount had been unauthorizedly retained by the defendant-Corporation has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant-Corporation. 10. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel, I do not find any substance in the same. 11. The findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court that the amount had been unauthorizedly retained by the defendant-Corporation has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant-Corporation. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that once the defendant-Corporation had unauthorizedly retained the amount belonging to the plaintiff-firm and had delayed the payment, then plaintiff-firm was entitled to claim the aforesaid amount alongwith interest. The learned First Appellate Court has awarded the interest @ 12% per annum. The awarding of the aforesaid interest is not shown to be excessive in any manner. It is not in dispute that the transaction between the plaintiff-firm and defendant-Corporation was commercial transaction and accordingly, the plaintiff-firm was entitled to claim interest on that basis. No other argument has been urged. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.