TMI Blog1965 (3) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 would follow in regard to the disposal of the materials supplied to the plaintiff under the contract. The plaintiff served notices, dated July 27, 1945--Ex. D-1 and April 28, 1947--Ex. D-2, asking the defendant to remove the goods. The goods were removed in small quantities in accordance with the release orders issued and the last lot weighing 282 tons was removed on May 30, 1949. After some correspondence between the plaintiff and the Union of India, the plaintiff filed the present suit on July 29, 1952 on the allegation that the plaintiff acted as bailees of the goods of the defendant from July, 1944 to May, 1949 and was entitled to the sum of ₹ 1,07,700-5-0 as follows: Rs. as. p. (a) Godown rent from July, 1944 to end of May, 1949 @ ₹ 4 per ton per month 93,231 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,974 2 0 27,525 5 0 Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the High Court, dated March 31, 1960, both the plaintiff and the defendant have presented appeals to this Court. 3. In Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1963 it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the storage charges granted at ₹ 300 p.m. by the High Court were not justified upon the evidence in the case. It was submitted that the report of Mr. J.S. Mongia, dated August 5, 1947 was taken by the High Court as the basis of its calculation and the fair rent payable to the plaintiff ought not to have exceeded the rate of ₹ 200 p.m. mentioned in Mr. Mongia's report. We do not consider there is any substance in this submission. Mr. J.S. Mongia was deputed by the defendant to conduct an enquiry and make a report with regard to storage charges claimed by the plaintiff. It appears from his report--Ex. D-19, dated August 5, 1947 that Mr. Mongia calculated that the storage of iron sheets took about 1.485 cubic feet of space. It is true that Mr. Mongia considered that the fair r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st to the extent of ₹ 2,974-2-0, as claimed in the plaint. In our opinion, the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant on this point is well founded and must be accepted as correct. It is well established that interest may be awarded for the period prior to the date of the institution of the 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 claimed is a sum certain which is payable at a certain time by virtue of a written instrument. But it is conceded that the amount claimed in this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest on the amounts raised by him for carrying out the contract and for incidental expenses incurred by him after delivery of the goods. The disputes was referred to arbitration and the award granted to the respondent three sums of money on the following heads: (1) loss suffered by the respondent in respect of goods not returned by him computed on the basis of difference between the price paid and price received by him on sale, (2) incidental charges on account of expenses incurred on advertisement, storage, agency commission, etc., (3) interest on sum refunded to respondent in respect of returned packets. It was held by this Court that the award of interest under the third head could not be sustained as the contract did not provide for payment of interest in respect of amounts paid by the respondent if the contract fell through, Nor could interest be awarded under Section 61 of the Sale of Goods Act or under the Interest Act on grounds of equity. In the absence of any usage or contract express or implied, or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest, the arbitrator cannot award interest by way of damages caused to the respondent for wrongful detention of money. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
