JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. These appeals have been filed by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Rayapur, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as “KSFC” for short) against the borrowers questioning the liability and correctness of the order passed by the Court below in Miscellaneous Petition Nos.97/2011 and 98/2011 dated 26.08.2016. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The KSFC had filed a recovery petition before the District Court under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “SFC Act” for short). The respondents-borrower had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on 28.11.2003 and another sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 26.12.2005 for establishment and development of a flour mill under the name and style of Sri Venkateshwar Flour Mill, Navalur. The said business concerned was a partnership firm. After availing the loan from the appellant – KSFC, the borrowers failed to repay the loan amount with interest as agreed. 4. Therefore, the KSFC invoked the personal guarantee offered by the borrowers and thereafter it was found that the borrowers were still found due to a tune of Rs.41,15,244/- as on the date of filing of the petitioner. The KSFC had also claimed overdue interest at the rate of 2.5% p.a., on the amount defaulted by the respondents. 5. The respondents filed objections raising several contentions. The main contention was that the petition was barred by time. The liability to pay a sum of Rs.41,15,244/- was disputed. Interest claimed by the KSFC is illegal, excessive and proper accounts have not been supplied. The appellant already initiated proceedings under section 29 of the SFC Act. A suit is also filed before the Civil Judge, Navalgund in O.S.No.184/2010 and the said fact is suppressed. Therefore, petition was sought to be dismissed. 6. The respondent No.8 had also filed separate objections contending that, she has not executed any documents and she is not a partner of the Flour Mill. She has not received any statutory notice from the appellant except the summons in O.S.No.184/2010. Therefore, the respondents had sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Therefore, petition was sought to be dismissed. 6. The respondent No.8 had also filed separate objections contending that, she has not executed any documents and she is not a partner of the Flour Mill. She has not received any statutory notice from the appellant except the summons in O.S.No.184/2010. Therefore, the respondents had sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Learned District Judge based on the above said facts and material placed before him held trial of the petition and found that the respondent Nos.1 to 7 & 9 were liable to pay a sum of Rs.41,15,244/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization of the amount due. The petition against the respondent No.8 came to be dismissed. 8. The appellant KSFC has filed an appeal against the order of the District Judge, referred above questioning the legality and correctness of award of future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. rather than awarding agreed rate of interest with penal interest on the amount overdue. The respondents have not challenged the finding of the trial court. It is also submitted that the other respondents have not questioned the impugned order of the learned District Judge. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Patil M.H. and learned counsel for Sri Prakash S. Udikeri, vehemently argued that the agreed rate of interest on the loan account No.9091706 on the sanctioned amount of Rs.25,00,000/-is 14.5% plus penal interest at the rate of 2.5% p.a. if default is committed. As regards second loan account No.9091707 the sanctioned amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. The agreed rate of interest payable was 13.5% p.a. plus penal interest at the rate of 2.5% p.a. if default is committed. 10. Therefore, learned counsel has prayed to modify the order of learned District Judge granting certificate to recover the principal amount with future interest at the agreed rate of interest and not at 10% p.a., as ordered by the Trial Court. 11. Against that, Smt. Chetan S.Biraj, learned counsel appearing for respondents strenuously urged before us that the business in question has gone into loss of the flour mill has been closed. Already the respondents have made a substantial payment in the execution case that was filed by KSFC. 11. Against that, Smt. Chetan S.Biraj, learned counsel appearing for respondents strenuously urged before us that the business in question has gone into loss of the flour mill has been closed. Already the respondents have made a substantial payment in the execution case that was filed by KSFC. Further respondents were ready to settle the matter by making full payment of the amount, but KSFC did not come up with calculation and exact amount due along with calculation of future interest. In this connection respondents had also filed writ petition in W.P.No.101227/2018 C/w W.P.No.102217/2018 in respect of the two loan accounts. Learned counsel would drew our attention to the order passed in the writ petitions dated 27.03.2019, the said order reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that through the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the amount due subject to correct determination the KSFC is not coming forthwith the correct figures. The KSFC, despite grant of time has not come out with its own figures and learned panel counsel for KSFC Ltd., pleads difficulty due to the imminent Election that comes in the way of interaction with his clients. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the time is being spent in seeking adjournment after adjournment but the accrual of the interest would not stop and therefore some protection needs to be granted to the petitioners who claiming to be bonafide borrowers, have made repayment of considerable amount, about two years ago. In the above circumstances, matter is adjourned to second week of June-2019 subject to the rider that during this adjournment period no interest would accrue on the amount which is yet to be determined. 12. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the respondents are not liable to pay future interest and no interest would be payable on the amount due during the adjourned period of writ petitions. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, circumstances and arguments the only point that arise for consideration would be : Point No.1 : Whether the learned District Judge was justified in awarding future interest at the rate of 10% p.a.? 14. The learned counsel for the appellant insisted for award of agreed rate of interest as future rate of interest. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, circumstances and arguments the only point that arise for consideration would be : Point No.1 : Whether the learned District Judge was justified in awarding future interest at the rate of 10% p.a.? 14. The learned counsel for the appellant insisted for award of agreed rate of interest as future rate of interest. Keeping in mind the submissions made by the respondents’ counsel and also bearing in mind the order i.e., passed in writ petitions by the learned Single Judge of this Court, we would like to examine the award of future interest in accordance with section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure which would be aptly applicable. The said section reads as under: 34. Interest. – (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent. Per annum, as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit: Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent. Per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation I.-In this sub-section, “nationalized bank” means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) Explanation II.-for the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. 15. Explanation I.-In this sub-section, “nationalized bank” means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) Explanation II.-for the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. 15. On plain reading of those provisions, we find that the court has got discretion to award future interest as indicated under sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and proviso upended to it read with the explanation Nos. I & II. Admittedly in this case a business that was run by respondents was a flour mill in a large scale, which involves the grinding of food grains. It is not in dispute that the respondents have also made substantial payment in the execution case also. However no calculation memo has been filed by either of the parties. Having regard to the facts that the order passed in W.P.No.101227/2018 C/w W.P.No.102217/2018 dated 27.03.2019 has also not been challenged by the appellant – KSFC. The personal guarantee has also been revoked by the KSFC before filing the petition before the District Judge. In addition to that the proceedings under Section 29 of SFC Act were also initiated. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances, we find that discretion can be exercised in favour of the respondents with regard to the grant of future rate of interest. 16. No doubt learned District Judge has not sustained any reasons as to why he awarded 10% future interest instead of agreed rate of interest, we find for the aforesaid reasons would suffice and wins a discretion in favour of the respondents. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the respondents are ready to pay the entire amount i.e., due with future interest at the rate of 10% excluding the period i.e., excluded in the order of writ petitions dated 27.03.2019 in lumpsum. 18. The above said submission is placed on record, appellant counsel would also submit that if the entire amount is paid he will not insist for penal interest. However, the learned counsel insisted for award of agreed rate of interest. 18. The above said submission is placed on record, appellant counsel would also submit that if the entire amount is paid he will not insist for penal interest. However, the learned counsel insisted for award of agreed rate of interest. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and the reasons stated above and also on the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, we find that it is justifiable to award 10% future rate of interest. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the KSFC is disposed of in the following terms: Appellant – KSFC is directed to prepare a calculation memo with regard to the amount due as on the date of this order by calculating the future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. deducting as and when the part payments if any already made and also deducting the period i.e., excluded by the order in W.P.No.101227/2018 C/w W.P.No.102217/2018 dated 27.03.2019, thereafter the respondents shall pay the said amount in one lumpsum within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the appellant KSFC would be empower to recover the said amount due with future interest at the rate of 12%. In terms of the above order both the appeals are disposed of.