9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (3) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July, 1944 to May, 1949. The plaintiff alleged that on February 11, 1944 the Union of India placed an indent for the supply of 1,20,000 drums. The raw materials comprising of 600 tons of P.C.R.C.A. iron sheets were to be supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff and the agreement was that the plaintiff was to be paid fifteen annas as the cost of fabrication for each drum. In pursuance of the contract the defendant supplied 600 tons of iron sheets to the plaintiff in July, 1944. The sheets were unloaded and stocked on the premises of the plaintiff's factory at Jullundur. But, on August 21, 1944, the defendant cancelled the contract by its letter--Ex. P-18, dated August 21, 1944 and the plaintiff was informed that further communication w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 9,440 against the Union of India. The plaintiff took the matter in appeal before the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 121 of 1953. By its judgment, dated March 31, 1960, the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and granted him a decree for ₹ 27,525-5-0 against the defendant as detailed below: Rs. as. p. (a) Godown rent @ ₹ 300 per month for a period of 59 months from July, 1944 to the end of May, 1949 17,700 0 0 (b) Chowkidar's salary 2,360 0 0 (c) Terminal Tax 760 0 0 (d) Cartage 2,105 14 0 (e) Unloading charges 825 5 0 (f) Cooliage 800 0 0 (g) Interest @ 6% per annum on items (e) to (f) as ₹ 2,974-2-0 claimed in the plaint 2,974 2 0 27,525 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooking after the iron sheets during the period of storage. We do not, therefore, find it possible to accept the contention of the appellant that the High Court was not justified in fixing the rent at ₹ 300 p.m. as godown charges. As regards the floor space, the High Court has remarked that the calculation of the trial Judge for the surface area was not correct. It appears that the trial Court accepted the evidence of Man Mohan Lal--D. W. 7--that the floor space occupied by 600 tons of iron sheets could not be more than 2,600 sq. ft., but the High Court pointed out that this calculation was fallacious, because a space of 1 foot was allowed between the bundles of iron sheets and this was hardly sufficient for the operation of "over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at fixed rate or if interest is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law, or under the provisions of any substantive law entitling the plaintiff to recover interest, as for instance, under Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court may award interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, when no rate of interest is specified in the promissory note or bill of exchange. There is in the present case neither usage nor any contract, express or implied, to justify the award of interest. Nor is interest payable by virtue of any provision of the law governing the case. Under the Interest Act, 1839, the Court may allow interest to the plaintiff if the amount cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en, the matter was referred to arbitration and the arbitrator gave an award in the contractor's favour, he Union of India which has succeeded to the rights and obligations of the Dominion, contested the award on various grounds one of which was the liability to pay interest on the amount awarded. Bose, J., in delivering the judgment of the Court, observed that the interest awarded to the contractor could not, in law, be awarded. He pointed out that the arbitrator is not a Court within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1839 and, in any event, interest could only be awarded if there was a debt or a sum certain payable at a certain time or otherwise by virtue of some written contract and there must have been a demand in writing stating that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money. Applying the principle to the present case, it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for interest to the extent of ₹ 2,974-2-0 claimed by him in the plaint and, therefore, the decree granted by the High Court in favour of the plaintiff should be reduced to this extent. 7. In Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1963 preferred on behalf of the plaintiff the main argument put forward by Mr. C. B. Aggarwala was in regard to the calculation of the storage charges for the iron sheets. It was pointed out that the plaintiff had given notice to the defendant claiming rent at the rate of ₹ 4 per ton per month and there was no protest on behalf of the defendant and, therefore, it must be taken that there was an implied agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
