REKHA SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a suit by Shri Om Prakash Bhartia under Section 69 of the contract Act, 1872 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 47,39,000. 00 besides pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum. The facts as disclosed from the plaint are as under :-The plaintiff alongwith Shri Hari Prasad Lohia, Shri Narayan Prasad garodia his father and brother Shri Hari Charan Garodia and Shri Bal Kishan were jointly running the following three companies:- (i)East India Cotton Manufacturing Company Ltd. , (Cotton Company) (ii)Fibre Processors Pvt. Ltd. (Fibre Company) (iii)East India Fabric Manufacturing Company Ltd. (Fabric Company) ( 2 ) THE East India Manufacturing Company Ltd. had certain powerloom units, attached to it by the name of Rajyashree Textiles and Prem Textiles. Initially the business was being jointly run by all the aforesaid parties but later it came to be controlled and managed by Shri Hari Prasad Lohia and Shri Narayan prasad Garodia. It so happened that in the year 1979 disputes and differences arose between the families which were earlier managing the business. Hence, in order to resolve the same an Agreement dated 2. 12. 79 was signed between the parties. The plaintiff however expressed his desire to disassociate himself from the rest of the group and sought division of the assets. By virtue of the Agreement dated 2. 12. 79 it was agreed between the parties to refer all their disputes and differences with respect to the control and / or management of the three companies mentioned hereinabove, as well as their rights, title and interest in the power loom units etc. , to the joint arbitration initially of Shri Shyam Sunder Kejriwal and Shri Ajay Kumar himatsingka. Subsequently, with the consent of the parties these Arbitrators were replaced by Shri Nathmal Himatsingka and Shri Pramod Khaitan. At the time of signing of the Agreement dated 2. 12. 79 Hari Prasad Lohia and Narayan Prasad garodia were having possession and control over the management and affairs of the three companies and the power loom units. They therefore executed indemnity bond dated 25. 9. 80 in favour of the plaintiff and his family members agreeing to indemnify them with respect to all liabilities including liabilities prior to 27. 4. 1980 arising from the operation of business of Prem Textiles and Rajyashree textiles. They therefore executed indemnity bond dated 25. 9. 80 in favour of the plaintiff and his family members agreeing to indemnify them with respect to all liabilities including liabilities prior to 27. 4. 1980 arising from the operation of business of Prem Textiles and Rajyashree textiles. As agreed between the parties the disputes between them were referred to arbitration which culminated into an award dated 3. 10. 83 whereby it was declared that the business of M/s Prem Textiles, Rajyashree Textiles and other companies/ factories alongwith all their assets and liabilities shall be deemed to have been transferred to Shri Hari Prasad Lohia and Shri Narayan Prasad garodia who were referred to as the first group. It was also declared in the award that the first group would keep the second group in which the plaintiff came to be included, fully indemnified and harmless in all respects as to every act, deed or thing done by or on behalf of the first group or its servants and / or agents in respect of said several business of the second group since 27. 4. 80. ( 3 ) IT was further declared that the first group shall keep the second group or any member or members thereof who had given personal guranatees in favour of the bankers in the above-named powerloom units for extending credit facilities, fully indemnified and harmless against all and every such liability. It was furthermore declared that the first group shall be responsible for all the court cases, present and future and shall keep the second party or its members harmless and indemnified in all respects. The award so rendered dated 3. 10. 83 was decreed by the High Court of Calcutta by decree dated 21. 9. 84 which was upheld by the Appeal Court of said High Court vide its order/ judgment dated 12. 4. 91 and was also confirmed by the Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 3. 11. 92. ( 4 ) IT is further the case of the plaintiff that prior to the Agreement dated 2. 11. 1979 the aforementioned Shri Hari Prasad Lohia and Shri Narayan Prasad garodia had availed of certain credit facilities from Bank of India in the name of Prem Textiles and Rajyashree textiles in which Smt. Prem Kumari Bhartia and smt. Rajyashree Bhartia had shares and interests. 11. 1979 the aforementioned Shri Hari Prasad Lohia and Shri Narayan Prasad garodia had availed of certain credit facilities from Bank of India in the name of Prem Textiles and Rajyashree textiles in which Smt. Prem Kumari Bhartia and smt. Rajyashree Bhartia had shares and interests. In the said accounts, the plaintiff had signed letters/agreement of Guarantee. The Bank of India had filed suits against Prem Textiles and Rajyashree Textiles and against the guarantors and co-obligants. The details of those suits are as under :- (1)Suit No. 460 of 1983 filed in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi titled as 'bank of India Vs. Prem Textiles and Others. (2)Suit No. 527-A of 1998 initially filed in the High Court of Delhi and last transferred to the Court of Shri Vinod Goel, Additional District Judge, Tis hazari Courts, Delhi titled as ' Bank of India Vs. Smt. Prem Kumari Bhartia and others. ' (3)OA No. 470 of 1996 originally filed in the High Court of Delhi and then transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi titled as Bank of India vs. Rajyashree Textiles and others. ' (4)Suit No. 899 of 1982 filed in the High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi titled as bank of India Vs. Smt. Rajyashree Bhartia and Another. ( 5 ) THE above suits covered a total amount of Rs. 31. 33 lacs besides interest with quarterly rests and costs. It appears that Shri Hari Prasad Lohia and Shri narayan Prasad Garodia who in terms of the Agreement between the parties came to acquire Prem Textiles and Rajyashree Textiles did not come forward to contest the suits filed by the Bank of India against the said units. It was therefore left to the plaintiff and its family members to bear the brunt of the same. In the meanwhile the Reserve Bank of India had come out with a scheme for reduction of NPA (Non performing Assets) of the banks and financial institutions and offered certain concessions in interest to parties who were willing to settle their claims. The plaintiff seized this opportunity and in his capacity as a guarantor offered to settle the said suits for a total sum of Rs. 30 lacs. The bank accepted the offer of the plaintiff and consequent thereof, vide covering letter dated March 28/29,2001 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. The plaintiff seized this opportunity and in his capacity as a guarantor offered to settle the said suits for a total sum of Rs. 30 lacs. The bank accepted the offer of the plaintiff and consequent thereof, vide covering letter dated March 28/29,2001 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 30 lacs vide cheque number 483928 dated 27. 3. 2001 drawn on ABN Amro Bank, Barakhamba Road in favour of the Bank of India. The said payment was made in full and final settlement of outstanding dues of the bank which it was claiming from Prem Textiles, rajyashree Textiles and Smt. Prem Kumari Bhartia, Smt. Rajyashree Bhartia and the plaintiff as a guarantor. The Bank of India received the aforesaid amount of rs. 30 lacs on 29. 3. 2001 and issued a letter dated 29. 3. 2001 confirming the receipt of the said amount in full and final settlement of its claims and accordingly issued a 'no due certificate' by virtue of a letter dated 9. 4. 2001. ( 6 ) THE present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against Shri Nikunj lohia and Bal Mukund Lohia as the legal representatives of deceased Shri Hari prasad Lohia and Shri Narayan Prasad Garodia as defendants No. 1,2 and 3 respectively for the recovery of Rs. 30 lacs which he had paid to the bank towards full and final settlement of the suits filed against him by the Bank of india as well as against Prem Textiles and Rajyashree Textiles which units, as already stated, in view of the Agreement dated 2. 12. 79 had come to the share of shri Hari Prasad Lohia and Shri Narayan Prasad Garodia who in turn had executed indemnity Bond dated 25. 9. 80 to indemnify Shri Om Prakash Bharatia and his family members with respect to all liability or liabilities including liabilities prior to 27. 4. 80 arising from the operation of, amongst others, Prem textiles and Rajyashree Textiles. This fact also finds mention in arbitration award which has been confirmed first by the High Court of Calcutta and then by the Supreme Court of India. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, he had sent notices to the defendants informing them that he was settling the matter with the Bank of India by making payment of Rs. This fact also finds mention in arbitration award which has been confirmed first by the High Court of Calcutta and then by the Supreme Court of India. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, he had sent notices to the defendants informing them that he was settling the matter with the Bank of India by making payment of Rs. 30 lacs, and after settlement also, sent them a legal notice informing them about the settlement and calling upon them to reimburse him with the amount of Rs. 30 lacs which he had paid to the Bank of India and Rs. 6 lacs towards legal and other cost besides Rs. 11. 39 lacs as interest from 1. 4. 01 till 27. 1. 03 at the rate of 18% per annum in all amounting to Rs. 47,39,000/ -. Since the defendants failed to reimburse the plaintiff, the present suit was filed in which Nikunj Lohia and Bal Mukund Lohia as well as Narayan Prasad Garodia have been impleaded as defendants. The various companies being run by these defendants have also been impleaded as parties. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff conceded that the companies being run by the said defendants could not be sued for the recovery of the amount which was due from them as owners of Prem Textiles and Rajyashree textiles. Therefore, the relief against defendants 1. 1 to 1. 6, 2. 1 to 2. 5 and 3. 1 to 3. 3 was not pressed. Although the defendants in response to the summons entered appearance but they failed to file written statement. Subsequently on 7. 12. 02 all the defendants were proceeded against exparte. ( 8 ) THE plaintiff in support of the aforementioned averments made in the plaint filed his own affidavit by way of evidence and proved on record Agreement dated 2. 12. 79 as Ext. PW1/1; Award dated 3. 10. 1983 as Ext. PW1/2; Indemnity Bond dated 25. 9. 1980 as Ext. PW1/3; order of the Calcutta High Court dated 4. 3. 1985 making the Award a Rule of the Court as Ext. PW1/4; Order dated 12. 4. 91 of the division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal as Ext. PW1/5; order dated 30. 11. 92 of the Supreme Court dismissing SLP as Ext. PW1/6; Copy of the RBI scheme for settlement as Ext. 3. 1985 making the Award a Rule of the Court as Ext. PW1/4; Order dated 12. 4. 91 of the division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal as Ext. PW1/5; order dated 30. 11. 92 of the Supreme Court dismissing SLP as Ext. PW1/6; Copy of the RBI scheme for settlement as Ext. PW1/7; Offer of settlement by plaintiff to bank of India in view of RBI scheme dated 3. 2. 01 as Ext. PW1/8 to PW1/11; reminder issued by the plaintiff to the bank dated 3. 3. 01 calling upon it to respond to the offer made by him as Ext. PW1/12 to 1/15; letter by Bank of India dated 9. 3. 2001 to the plaintiff requesting for improvement of offer as ext. PW1/18; letter dated 28/29 March 2001 issued by plaintiff enclosing cheque of Rs. 30 lacs as Ext. PW1/19; letter dated 29. 3. 2001 issued by the Bank of India regarding acceptance of settlement and acknowledgment of cheque as Ext. PW1/20; no dues certificate dated 9. 4. 2001 issued by Bank of India as Ext. PW1/21; certified copies of plaint and order recording settlement in four cases as ext. PW1/22 to PW1/29; legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendants are ext. PW1/30 collectively. The postal receipts as well as the certificate of posting and the AD cards are marked as Ext. PW1/31 to PW1/37 collectively. I have gone through the plaint and so also the various annexures which have been exhibited. The averments contained in the plaint are duly supported by the aforementioned annexures. In the absence of a contra case set up by the defendant, I have no hesitation in accepting the veracity of the plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 30 lacs. The plaintiff has also claimed pre-suit interest from 1. 4. 01 till the filing of the suit @ 18% p. a and Rs. 6 lacs towards litigation expenses. However, he has neither proved that the prevalent rate of interest at the relevant time was 18% per annum nor that he had incurred litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 6 lacs. Therefore, I deem it proper to award pre-suit interest to the plaintiff at the rate of 8% per annum w. e. f 1. 4. 2001 to 27. 1. 2003 and Rs. 6 lacs. Therefore, I deem it proper to award pre-suit interest to the plaintiff at the rate of 8% per annum w. e. f 1. 4. 2001 to 27. 1. 2003 and Rs. 1 lac towards litigation expenses. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to pendentelite interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the decreetal amount from the date of the decree till realisation. Decree sheet be drawn.