JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.479 of 1988, on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.44,600/-. 2. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 30.01.1991, granted decree for a sum of Rs.26,029.12 and refused to grant interest on the said amount from the date of transaction till the date of passing of the decree. Aggrieved by the denial of the relief regarding interest, the present Appeal is filed. 3. Considering the limited scope of the prayer, sought for, in this Appeal, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to discuss the facts of the case in detail, and, it would be suffice to state the points, which the parties are at issue. 4. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.26,029/-, being the value of the goods supplied by it to the respondents/defendants and demanded 24% interest on that amount and claimed Rs.44,600/-, as a whole. 5. The Trial Court passed a decree for a sum of Rs.26.029.12, but, declined to grant interest on that amount, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court, without properly appreciating Exs.A2 to A4, the invoices for delivery of the goods to the respondents, wherein, it was specifically stated that interest has to be charged at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the bill and therefore, the respondents are liable to pay interest on the goods delivered and that was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that admittedly the contract was concluded over phone and the invoices, marked as Exs.A2 to A4, came into existence, later, and therefore, eventhough the interest was mentioned in the invoices, the appellant cannot claim interest on the basis of the invoices, as there was no agreement for payment of interest at the time of conclusion of the contract. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, therefore, submitted that in the absence of any proof or evidence, adduced by the appellant that at the time of conclusion of the contract, the parties agreed to pay interest, the appellant cannot claim interest from the respondents and this aspect was properly appreciated by the Trial Court. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is as follows:- Whether the respondents are liable to pay interest for the supplies made to them by the appellant? 10. As stated supra, the respondents did not deny reception of the goods under the invoices. As a matter of fact, in the written statement filed by them, it was admitted that as on 04.09.1984, a sum of Rs.28,529.28 was due and payable by the first defendant Firm to the appellant/plaintiff and that was also paid through cheque. It was also stated in the written statement that there was an agreement between the parties and the first defendant Firm that no interest may be charged over the outstanding amount. P.W.1 admitted in evidence that the first respondent-Firm would place orders over phone and as per the orders placed by them, the appellant would supply the goods to the respondents. The bone of contention of the respondents was that at the time of placing orders, there was no agreement for interest and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim interest subsequently. In other words, the main contention of the respondents was that at the time of conclusion of the contract, there was no agreement for interest and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim interest. 11. According to me, the contention of the respondents is not acceptable. Even though order was placed over phone, the contract was concluded only on the delivery made by the appellant, and the same was also accepted by the respondents. It is seen from Exs.A2 and A3 that delivery was accepted by the respondents and the seal of the first respondent Firm was affixed in those invoices, wherein, 24% interest was mentioned. Even though order was placed over phone, the contract was concluded only on the delivery made by the appellant, and the same was also accepted by the respondents. It is seen from Exs.A2 and A3 that delivery was accepted by the respondents and the seal of the first respondent Firm was affixed in those invoices, wherein, 24% interest was mentioned. Therefore, the contract was concluded only when the delivery was made and at that time, the respondents accepted delivery by affixing their Company's seal in the invoices, wherein, interest was mentioned, and hence, in my opinion, it cannot be contended that the respondents are not liable to pay the interest for the supplies made by the appellant. Admittedly, the transaction between the parties was a commercial transaction and eventhough, there was no pleading to the effect that as per the Trade Practice and Custom, interest was payable on the outstanding amount, in my opinion, there is no need for such plea, considering the nature of transaction and the delayed payment, and the Court can also presume that when there was a delay in the payment of amount on commercial transaction, the party, who supplied the goods was entitled to claim interest. In this case, in the invoices, rate of interest was specifically mentioned and therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim 24% interest on the goods supplied to the respondents and that was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court 12. Further, the Trial Court without any discussion held that the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove that there was an agreement for payment of interest between the parties, without properly appreciating Exs.A2 to A4. Hence, the findings of the Trial Court that there was no agreement between the parties for payment of interest are set aside and I hold that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of transaction and the point for consideration in this Appeal is answered in favour of the appellant. Hence, the Appeal is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay interest on the sum of Rs.26.029.12 at the rate of 24% per annum from 04.12.1985, viz., the date of issuance of notice till the date of decree, and thereafter, interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of payment. No costs.