Judgment DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- The suit was for realization of the value of the goods which the defendant as the storage and handling contractor failed to account for. Hindustan Steel Limited acted as the agent of Bokaro Steel Limited. Hindustan Steel Limited appointed the defendant as the storage and handling contractor for handling export consignment with effect from July 1, 1976. The defendant executed an Indemnity and Custody Bond on November 19, 1976 in favour of the Hindustan Steel Limited. By a letter dated June 30, 1977 the arrangement between Hindustan Steel Limited and the defendant was extended up to June 30, 1978. In terms of the arrangement between the parties, the defendant was obliged to lodge all claims for shortages with the Railway Authorities or the Port Commissioners as the case may be to recover the same from the Railway Authorities or the Commissioners. Such recovery was to be made by the defendant for and on behalf of Hindustan Steel Limited. Upon recovering the claim for such short supply from the Railway authorities or the Port Commissioners as the case may be, the defendant was to make over the proceeds thereof to Hindustan Steel Limited. The defendant had informed the Hindustan Steel Limited that, from time to time the defendant received some consignments in short from the Railway Authorities for which the defendant had lodged claims with the Railway Authorities. By two several letters both dated December 19, 1977 the defendant had informed the Hindustan Steel Limited as to the quantity and the value for which claims were lodged by the defendant with the Railway Authorities on behalf of Hindustan Steel Limited. By virtue of the provisions of the Public Sector Iron and Steel Companies (Restructuring and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1978 which came into effect from May 1, 1978 Hindustan Steel Limited and Bokaro Steel Limited stood dissolved and all the undertakings of Hindustan Steel Limited and Bokaro Steel Limited stood transferred to and vested with the plaintiff and with all existing contracts. The contracts, therefore, between the defendant and Hindustan Steel Limited stood vested with the plaintiff with effect from May 1, 1978 by virtue of the said Act of 1978. The plaintiff apprehended that, the defendant would receive the payments from the Railway Authorities on account of short supply without paying the plaintiff. In such circumstances the plaintiff filed the instant suit. The plaintiff apprehended that, the defendant would receive the payments from the Railway Authorities on account of short supply without paying the plaintiff. In such circumstances the plaintiff filed the instant suit. The written statement of the defendant was on record. However, none appeared for the defendant at the time of final hearing. In the written statement the defendant claimed that, it was entitled to a sum in excess of rupees 8 lakhs from the plaintiff on account of commission receivable and other dues. The defendant had filed a suit being Suit No. 392 of 1978. The defendant admitted that, it had issued the two letters both dated December 19, 1977 tabulating the entire claim of short supply lodged with the Railway Authorities by the defendant. The plaintiff disclosed various documents and produced one witness. Documents produced on behalf of the plaintiff were marked Exhibits ‘A’ to ‘K’. I have considered the pleadings on record, the documents marked exhibits, the deposition of the witness of the plaintiff and the materials on record. The plaintiff came into being by virtue of the provisions of the Public Sector Iron and Steel Companies (Restructuring and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1978 which came into effect on and from May 1, 1978. By and under the provisions of the said Act of 1978, all the undertakings of Hindustan Steel Limited and Bokaro Steel Limited stood transferred to and vested with the plaintiff along with all contracts deeds, bonds, agreements and other instruments of whatsoever nature with effect from May 1, 1978. Consequently, the subject contracts also stood vested with the plaintiff on and from May 1, 1978. Hindustan Steel Limited appointed the defendant as the storage and handling contractor at Calcutta for handling export consignments by a letter dated November 23, 1976. Such letter was marked as Exhibit ‘A’. The said letter inter alia, required the defendant to execute an Indemnity and Custody Bond in favour of the plaintiff in respect of materials to be despatched to and received by the defendant at the yard. The defendant executed an Indemnity and Custody Bond on November 19, 1976 which was marked as Exhibit ‘F’. By such Indemnity and Custody Bond the defendant agreed to remain liable for all losses, damages and shortages occurring in respect of the transactions. The defendant executed an Indemnity and Custody Bond on November 19, 1976 which was marked as Exhibit ‘F’. By such Indemnity and Custody Bond the defendant agreed to remain liable for all losses, damages and shortages occurring in respect of the transactions. The contract between the defendant and Hindustan Steel Limited appearing at Exhibit ‘A’ was for a period of one year from July 1, 1976. The period of such contract was extended for a further period of one year up to and including June 30, 1978 by a letter dated June 30, 1977 issued by Hindustan Steel Limited to the defendant. Such letter was marked as Exhibit ‘B’ in the suit. In terms of the agreement between the defendant Hindustan Steel Limited, the defendant was to lodge a claim for shortages on the Railway Authorities or the Port Commissioners as the case may be for any short supply received. Hindustan Steel Limited sent diverse consignments to the defendant by Railways. The defendant received such consignment in short from the Railway Authorities. By two several letters both dated December 19, 1977 and marked as Exhibit ‘G’ and ‘H’, the defendant informed Hindustan Steel Limited that it had lodged claims with the Railway Authorities in respect of consignments received in short by it through the Railways. The details of such consignments and the value of the claim for the short supply lodged with the Railway authorities was also stated. The aggregate value of such short supply claim made by the defendant with the Railway Authorities was Rs.20,02, 284/-. The facts that the defendant received the consignments from Hindustan Steel Limited and that the defendant lodged its claims in respect thereof with the Railway Authorities were not denied in the written statement. The two letters both dated December 19, 1977 written by it and its contents were also not denied by the defendant in the written statement. The plaintiff established that, various consignments were sent to the defendant by Railways. The defendant claiming short supply had lodged claims in respect thereof with the Railway authorities. The defendant was obliged to make good the value of the short supply in terms of the Indemnity and Custody Bond. The value of the short supply was established from the two several letters of the defendant both dated December 19, 1977 being Exhibit ‘G’ and ‘H’. The defendant was obliged to make good the value of the short supply in terms of the Indemnity and Custody Bond. The value of the short supply was established from the two several letters of the defendant both dated December 19, 1977 being Exhibit ‘G’ and ‘H’. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed the sum of Rs.20,02,284/- from the defendant together with interest thereon. The plaintiff also stated that, it had claims against the defendant and other person for the realization of which the plaintiff had filed a suit being C.S. No. 290 of 1978. Such suit was pending. The claim of the plaintiff made in the present suit was not the subject matter of C.S. No. 290 of 1978. The plaintiff, therefore, established its claim for the sum of Rs.20,02,284/- for against the defendant. The defendant acknowledged in its two several letters dated December 19, 1977 being Exhibits ‘G’ and ‘H’ herein that firstly there were short supply, secondly the value of such short supply was Rs.20,02,284/- and thirdly that, the defendant had lodged claims with the Railway Authorities for such short supply. There was nothing brought on record to show that the defendant had paid the sum of Rs.20,02,284/- to the plaintiff. In terms of the Indemnity and Custody Bond being Exhibit ‘F’ the defendant was liable to make good the plaintiff for such short delivery. The plaintiff established through Exhibits ‘C’ that there was a fire at its Fairly Place Building office on November 7, 1978. The plaintiff also established that, documents in respect of the suit were destroyed by such fire. Few documents pertaining to the suit were also lying with the erstwhile advocate on record for the plaintiff. By two several letters dated April 21, 2014 and April 22, 2014 the plaintiff called on its erstwhile Advocate on record to make available such documents. The two letters were marked as Exhibit ‘K’ collectively in the suit. However, such advocate on record did not produce the original documents at the hearing of the suit. The plaintiff also claimed interest at the commercial rate on the sum that may be found due and payable by the defendant to it. The two letters were marked as Exhibit ‘K’ collectively in the suit. However, such advocate on record did not produce the original documents at the hearing of the suit. The plaintiff also claimed interest at the commercial rate on the sum that may be found due and payable by the defendant to it. In such circumstances, there will be a decree for a sum of Rs.20,02,284/- against the defendant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on and from December 19, 1977 being the date when the defendant informed the plaintiff as to the value of the short supply and the fact of lodgement of claim with the Railway Authorities. The plaintiff will be entitled to interest at such rate till realization. Such rate of interest is awarded in view of the nature of transactions between the parties being commercial and since nationalized bank charges interest at the rates not less than the aforesaid rate of interest in respect of commercial transactions. The plaintiff will also be entitled to costs of the suit assessed at Rs.50,000/- from the defendant. C.S. No. 936 of 1978 is decreed accordingly. The Department will draw up and complete the decree as expeditiously as possible.