1. ' Through this appeal, the appellants have impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Banking Court No,I directing the appellants to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs,23,533,599/- with costs of fund from 08.06.2009 till the entire amount is liquidated..
2. ' Briefly the appellants were leased out certain machineries and equipment on lease for a period of five years through lease agreement dated 28.10.2010 envisaging 60 monthly rentals. There is also no controversy regarding the fact that after payment of 21 lease rentals no further lease rental was paid.
3. ' In this background, the only point agitated by learned counsel for the appellant is that since the rentals include mark-up, therefore, the Financial Institution is not entitled to the cost of funds. The counsel has conceded in respect of the schedule at page-115, which shows total rentals as Rs,35,829,876/- all overdue since October 2010 and reflects total payment as Rs,12,296,277/ leaving an outstanding of Rs,23,533,599/-, however, he says that since the amount decreed i,e, Rs,23,533,599/- includes mark-up, therefore, the Financial Institution is not entitled to the cost of funds, which the Banking Court has allowed from 08.06.2009.
4. ' We are afraid that it is not the correct legal position, the correct legal position to our mind is that the cost of funds would apply to an instalment from the day it is found overdue. In fact for every instalment, cost of funds is to be calculated separately and is to he made applicable from the day it is overdue. It appears that the Banking Court in fact has, by taking a lenient view, by granting cost of funds from the date of filing of the suit. However, this issue has not been agitated by the Bank before us, therefore, we without addressing this issue dismiss the appeal.