9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to pre-suit interest in absence of a contractual provision or demand notice. 2. Awarding of pendente lite and future interest by the Trial Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Pre-Suit Interest: The primary issue in this case was whether the plaintiff was entitled to pre-suit interest from the date of the agreement until the date of filing the suit, despite not having claimed such interest in the demand notice or the plaint. The appellant contended that the Trial Court erred in awarding pre-suit interest without any contractual agreement or demand notice specifying such interest. The legal framework for awarding pre-suit interest is governed by the Interest Act, 1978, which allows interest to be claimed if there is a written instrument, an agreement (express or implied), or a usage having the force of law. The Court noted that in this case, there was no written instrument specifying a debt payable at a certain time, nor was there any agreement or usage regarding the payment of interest. Furthermore, no written notice demanding interest was issued by the plaintiff. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Trial Court was not justified in awarding pre-suit interest. The judgment was modified to decline interest for the period prior to the filing of the suit on 5.6.1998. 2. Awarding of Pendente Lite and Future Interest: The second issue concerned the awarding of pendente lite and future interest by the Trial Court. Under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has the discretion to award pendente lite interest from the date of the suit to the date of the decree and future interest from the date of the decree to the payment date. The Trial Court had awarded 12% per annum interest during the pendency of the suit and 6% per annum after the decree. The appellate Court upheld this decision, noting that the award of pendente lite and future interest was within the discretion of the Trial Court and was not arbitrary. The appellate Court found no reason to interfere with this part of the decree, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Mahesh Chandra Bansal v. Krishna Swaroop Singhal and Anr., which supported such discretionary awards. In conclusion, the appellate Court allowed the appeal in part by modifying the judgment to exclude pre-suit interest, while affirming the Trial Court's decision on pendente lite and future interest. No costs were awarded.
|
