Delhi District Court
Brig. R P S Shergill (Retd.) vs Central Warehousing Corporation on 18 April, 2015
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN : ADDITIONAL DISTIRCT
JUDGE04 : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No. 161/13
In the matter of :
Brig. R P S Shergill (Retd.), Shaurya Chakra
S/o Late Wing Cdr. Basant Singh
R/o B3/8, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi. .......Plaintiff
Versus
Central Warehousing Corporation
Through its Managing Director
4/1, Siri Fort Institutional Area
August Kranti Marg, New Delhi. ........Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 30.03.2012
Date reserved for judgment : 21.03.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.04.2015
Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 17,92,110/.
J U D G M E N T :
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs. 17,92,110/ with interest inter alia alleging that after his retirement from Indian Army from the post of Brigadier he has applied for empanelment for running a security service under the name and style of M/s Professionals Security with the Directorate General of Resettlement (herein referred as DGR), Ministry of Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....1 of 19 : 2 :
Defence, New Delhi; because of his distinguished service in Army he was duly empanelled with the Directorate General Resettlement; Directorate General Resettlement duly sponsored the plaintiff for security and allied services vide letter dated 24.08.2006 which is annexure P1; plaintiff was given an offer letter dated 31.10.2006 copy of which is annexure P2; a contract dated 17.11.2006 was entered into between plaintiff and defendant, true copy of which is filed as annexure P3.
2. It is further alleged that without any prior notice the defendant started deducting arbitrary amounts from the genuine bills of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff has already made the payments to its security personnel; the details of the deductions made by the defendant are shown in annexure P4; upon inquiry the defendant informed the plaintiff that the deductions are being made for non deployment of the exserviceman to the extent of 90% who were allegedly being deployed to the extent of 42% only; the guidelines of the DGR do not permit any such deductions from the bills of the security agency as has been done by defendant illegally because nothing is mentioned in the DGR guidelines annexure P5; due to illegality by the defendant, the plaintiff has sent a notice of termination vide letter dated 01.07.2008 annexure P6; despite receipt of the termination notice from the plaintiff, the defendant did not relieve the plaintiff and asked him to continue; the plaintiff was asked to continue for another period of almost one year since the defendant was not satisfied with the replacement; despite termination notice given by the plaintiff, the defendant Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....2 of 19 : 3 :
continue to deduct the amount illegally from the bills of the plaintiff even for the period in respect of which the defendant asked the plaintiff to continue; the plaintiff was relieved from providing the security service to the defendant vide letter dated 23.06.2009 annexure P7; the plaintiff wrote various letters to the defendant to release the legitimate dues of the plaintiff vide letter dated 22.08.2008, 16.12.2008, 04.02.2009 and 15.10.2009 annexure P8 (colly);
neither the guidelines of the DGR nor any clause of the contract with the defendant authorized defendant to make such deductions from the bills of the plaintiff; the DGR even wrote a letter dated 17.02.2009 to the defendant and also letter dated 10.12.2009 clarifying that the withholding of the payments of the plaintiff was highly irregular. Ultimately, the plaintiff was compelled to sent a legal notice dated 03.05.2011 to the defendant to release the payment of the withholding amount alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. The copy of the said notice is filed as annexure P12.
3. The defendant in its reply dated 19.07.2011 stated that the matter of release of payment was under consideration, however, after considerable delay the defendant released the withheld amount of the plaintiff after a delay of more than four years; the amount of Rs. 22,78,418/ was released to the plaintiff i.e. after a delay of four years from the date of deduction and two years from the date of determination of contract; the said amount was only the principle amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued another legal notice dated 07.12.2011 to the defendant with regard to interest on the withheld amount having not been Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....3 of 19 : 4 :
paid by the defendant. No reply to the said notice was filed by the defendant. Hence, the present suit has been instituted for recovery of Rs. 17,92,110/ alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the withheld amount by the defendant.
4. In the WS the defendant has taken the preliminary objection that the plaintiff cannot ask for the suit amount being interest as the plaintiff failed to fulfill the contractual obligation of providing security personnel 90% from ex servicemen category; further the sufficient deployment of staff strength was not made by the defendant and for that reason the defendant was constrained to withhold the payments so that the plaintiff would made the required obligations in due course of time and as such the payment withheld were already released to the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation; no cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of this court; plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts.
5. On merit, all the averments with regard to illegality and withholding of the dues of the plaintiff are controverted and denied. However, the liability of the defendant to pay the interest on the withheld amount has been controverted and denied.
6. In replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the stand taken in the plaint and denied the averments of the defendant made in the WS.
7. After completion of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19.01.2013:
Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....4 of 19 : 5 :
i. Whether the suit is barred by prescribed period of limitation? OPD ii. Whether the suit is without cause of action exclusively for claim of interest, after release of withheld amount to the plaintiff and for want of following the guidelines of DGR, terms and conditions of contract/letter dated 31.10.2006? OPD iii. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of fulfillment of contractual obligation of providing security personnel 90% from ExServicemen category and sufficient deployment of total staff? OPD iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs. 17,92,110/ against the defendant? OPP v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentilite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the amount mentioned in issue No. 4? OPP vi. Relief
8. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for PE. In support of its case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 by filing his affidavit Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, the plaintiff closed his evidence.
9. The defendant examined Rishi Pal, Mangaer (General) as DW1 by filing his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. Thereafter, the defendant closed its evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
10. I have heard the arguments at length from both the sides and have carefully gone through the entire material on record. MY ISSUEWISE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER:
Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....5 of 19 : 6 :
ISSUE NO.1. :
"Whether the suit is barred by prescribed period of limitation? OPD"
11. The onus to prove this issue was primarily upon the defendant. In paragraph no.19 of his affidavit DW1/A the DW1 has simply stated that the suit is barred by limitation as it was not filed during period of three years.
12. It is stated in the affidavit of plaintiff Ex.PW1/1 in paragraph no.12 that withheld amount was paid vide sanction order dated 12.09.2011 Ex.PW1/P. It is further stated that not even a single penny has not been paid by the defendant in respect of interest on that huge amount which was illegally deducted from the bills of the plaintiff; since the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the withheld amount and the withholding amount was released on September 2011, therefore, plaintiff sent another notice dated 07.11.2012 against acknowledgment card Ex.PW1/Q dated 08.12.2011 and despite receipt of said notice no reply was sent by defendant and no payment towards interest was made forcing the plaintiff to file the present suit. It was argued on behalf of plaintiff that the period of limitation for recovery of the interest amount i.e. suit amount will start from the date of the payment of the illegally withheld amount on 12.09.2011. In the notice Ex.PW1/N the plaintiff has called upon the defendant to make the payment of the withheld amount alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. In pursuance of the said notice the defendant made the payment of the principle amount and has not made any payment of the interest vide sanction order dated 12.09.2011 Ex.PW1/P. Thereafter, even if it is Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....6 of 19 : 7 :
assumed that the defendant were called upon to make the payment of the interest on 03.05.2011 the suit filed on 30.03.2012 is within the period of three years from the date of payment of the due amount as claimed by the plaintiff. As per article 25 of Limitation Act, 1963 there is limitation of three years for recovery of interest upon money due from the defendant to the plaintiff from the date when the interest has become due. In this case, the withheld amount was admittedly paid by the defendant to the plaintiff vide sanction order dated 12.09.2011 Ex.PW1/P. Before that plaintiff called upon the defendant vide Ex.PW1/9 to pay the said withheld amount alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. The said interest amount was not paid and for that reason the period of limitation for recovery of interest amount as is claimed by the plaintiff for released of the withheld amount shall start from the date of the payment of the principle amount on 12.09.2011. Hence, suit of the plaintiff has been instituted within the period of limitation. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2 and 3 :
"Whether the suit is without cause of action exclusively for claim of interest, after release of withheld amount to the plaintiff and for want of following the guidelines of DGR, terms and conditions of contract/letter dated 31.10.2006?OPD and Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of fulfillment of contractual obligation of providing security personnel 90% from Ex Servicemen category and sufficient deployment of total staff? OPD"
Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....7 of 19 : 8 :
13. Both these issues are taken up together as both these issues are interlinked. The onus of these issues are upon the defendant because it is alleged in the written statement that plaintiff has no legal basis for claiming interest on the so called withheld amount as there were no guidelines of DGR in that regard and the amount was withheld for justified reasons. It is further the case of defendant that they have withheld the amount of plaintiff as he has failed to fulfill the contractual obligation of providing security personnel constituting 90% from ExServicemen category and further the staff deployed was not sufficient.
14. In order to discharge the onus of these issues the defendant has examined Manager (General) Sh. Rishi Pal as DW1 who has filed his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He has deposed in paragraph no.6 that the plaintiff was awarded the service at CWC, CFS, Dronagiri Node w.e.f. 01.11.2006 vide letter dated 31.10.2006 for the security arrangement and 100% exservicemen were required to be deployed as security guard as per one of the term and condition of the award letter. It is further deposed that as per guidelines of DGR the plaintiff had to provide atleast 90% security guard from the category of exservicemen. He has further deposed that one of the condition of the award was that any shortfall in deployment of exservicemen shall attract penalty as deemed fit by the Regional Manger, CWC, RO, Navi Mumbai. The said letter dated 31.10.2006 has not been exhibited by DW1 in his statement, however, the same has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/B. I have gone through the said award letter but Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....8 of 19 : 9 :
did not find the said condition existing in it as deposed by DW1. It seems that DW1 tried to misinterpret the term J of award letter Ex.PW1/B which is as follows:
"Any short fall in the strength of security personnel on particular days will entail deduction of an amount per head equal to one day payment of security personnel of that category for the respective month".
15. It is further deposed by DW1 that part payment of the total amount payable by defendant to plaintiff was withheld due to deficiency of providing the exservicemen. The payment was not denied but was only withheld due to failure in the performance of the plaintiff and was released at the later stage, with the hope that the plaintiff would improve its performance. It is however clear that there was no such term and condition in that award letter for permitting the defendant to withhold the part payment due to deficiency in the service, if any, especially in the circumstances as the plaintiff has already made the payment to the security personnel provided to the defendant.
16. It is further deposed in paragraph no.13 of the affidavit that the defendant sent their reply to the notice of plaintiff mentioning the reasons for withholding the amount and the reply sent by defendant has already been exhibited by plaintiff as Ex.PW1/O.
17. I have gone through the said document and in the said document no reason has been assigned by the defendant for withholding the part payment of the plaintiff because it is simply stated that the entire subject matter of Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....9 of 19 : 10 :
release of payment of security service charges bill was under consideration. It is further deposed that after clarification from DGR, the legal advise from their advocate, it was decided by the defendant to release the withheld payment to the plaintiff. It is further deposed that no interest was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the present suit.
18. In his cross examination DW1 has admitted that there was no term and condition in agreement Ex.PW1/C for deduction of any kind. It is further admitted that there is no mentioning of penalty in the term and conditions, however, the same was in the guidelines of DGR booklet which was earlier exhibited as Ex.PW1/B. The witness has sought permission to go through the file and after going through the file with the help of his counsel the witness stated nothing about the said term and condition existing in DGR booklet Ex.PW1/B. It was further admitted in cross examination that the defendant has allowed the non exservicemen to be provided as security guard by the plaintiff agency due to security reasons. It is further admitted in cross examination that the plaintiff had given notice for discontinuing the services with them but despite the said notice they did not relieve the plaintiff for security reasons and because of non availability of security guard in DGR they continued with the plaintiff. It is further admitted that they had not taken a consent of the plaintiff for deduction done by them. It is further admitted that DGR has itself written to the defendant to release the payment of the plaintiff in Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....10 of 19 : 11 :
the year 2009 itself. DW1 has neither admitted nor denied the suggestion that the defendant at their site was not providing any residential or other services to the security personnels deputed, so the exservicemen were not interested to work as security guard at their site.
19. The plaintiff on the other hand in his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 has deposed that prior to any notice to plaintiff, the defendant has started deducting the arbitrary amount from the genuine bills of the plaintiff whereas the plaintiff has already made the payments to his security personnels for the service rendered to the defendant. He further deposed that the guidelines of DGR did not permit any deduction from the bills of the security agency as has been done by the defendant illegally; the deduction so made was arbitrary and illegal. It is further deposed that in case the defendant was not satisfied with the service they could terminate the services of plaintiff but despite notice of termination given by the plaintiff to the defendant they have not relieved the plaintiff from the services of defendant and also continued illegal deduction from the monthly bills of the salary of the security personnels deployed by the plaintiff at the site of defendant. It is further deposed that the DGR has written various letters to the defendant to release the withheld amount to the defendant. The said letters are dated 18.02.2009 Ex.PW1/I1, dated 10.12.2009 Ex.PW1/I2, dated 12.05.2009 Ex.PW1/I3 and dated 26.05.2009 Ex.PW1/I4.
20. PW1 has further relied upon the letter Ex.PW1/K which is written by Regional Manager of the defendant to the Director (Personnel) directing Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....11 of 19 : 12 :
them to release the withheld payment of plaintiff. It is written in the said letter that the Joint Director DGR, New Delhi vide letter dated 18.02.2009 and 12.05.2009 has advised this office (D) to release the withheld amount of security agency under the intimation of DGR.
21. In view of the above discussion of the evidence of the defendant as well as plaintiff, it has become apparent that the plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to establish that he has cause of action to institute the present suit to claim interest on the delayed release of the withheld amount to the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to lead sufficient evidence in order to discharge the onus of issue no.2 and 3. Defendant has failed to prove that there was any mandatory contractual obligation of providing security personnel constituting 90% from Ex Servicemen category and further the staff deployed was not sufficient. Hence, issue no.2 and 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. ISSUE NO.4:
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs. 17,92,110/ against the defendant? OPP"
22. The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. While deciding the issue no.2 and 3 it has been decided that the plaintiff has cause of action to seek interest on the delayed payment of withheld amount and further that there was no contractual obligation upon the plaintiff to mandatory supply of the 90% of the exservicemen as security personnels to the defendant and further that in case of deficiency of supply of exservicemen the defendant was Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....12 of 19 : 13 :
entitled to withheld/deduct the monthly bill of plaintiff for the service of security guards provided to the defendant by the plaintiff.
23. It is deposed by the plaintiff as well as argued on behalf of plaintiff that 90% of the exservicemen could not be deployed as security guard because admittedly no facilities were provided by defendant at their site for the residence of security guards/exservicemen and further there were no transportation facilities provided from the site of deployment to the place of residence. It is further argued that now a days there is a huge demand of ex servicemen by Multi National Companies, Nationalized and private banks and for that reasons the exservicemen are not coming forward to work as security guards in other organization which are not providing any facility of their residence and transportation as was the case of defendant. No contrary arguments was advanced by the defendant in that regard. There is nothing in the cross examination of plaintiff in that regard and plaintiff has withstood test of the cross examination on that aspect. It is admitted case of defendant that the security personnels were deployed by the plaintiff for which he has raised a valid bill but they have withheld the amount as claimed by plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of committing breach of contract as he has not deployed 90% exservicemen as security guards. While returning my findings on issue no.2 and 3, the defendant has failed to show any such contractual obligation existing in the award letter Ex.PW1/B and agreement Ex.PW1/C executed between the parties. Plaintiff in his cross examination has clarified that 90% ex Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....13 of 19 : 14 :
servicemen were not deployed as security guard because exservicemen were not willing for various reasons like poor service conditions, non availability of accommodation, shortage of water, poor connectivity and also because of better opportunities available to the exservicemen in the MNC, bank and other organization. It was argued on behalf of defendant that it is admitted by PW1 in cross examination that sometime double duty was given to the security guards and amount of Rs. 12,28,418/ was withheld on account of double duty performed by some security guards deployed by plaintiff. It was therefore argued that the plaintiff was not justified to claim interest on the said amount which was released later on after due clarification from the DGR and other concerned agencies.
24. I have gone through the question put to the witness in that regard. PW1 has admitted that some security guards were doing double duty but whenever they carried out double duty they were paid adequately. I find no force in the arguments of defendant that they were entitled to withheld the amount because some of the security guards were doing the double duty and it is upon the individual doing the duty to do double duty for earning more amount. Moreover, it is not the case of defendant that the plaintiff has not paid the security guard for the double duty and has paid only for one duty. Therefore, in these circumstances, nothing has been brought on record by defendant to justify their withholding of amount of Rs. 12,28,418/ due to the double duty performed by the security guards provided by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....14 of 19 : 15 :
further argued on behalf of defendant that the plaintiff has never brought to the notice of the defendant that he will be claiming interest on the withheld amount and for that reason he is not entitled to claim any interest on the withheld amount which has been duly paid after due clarification. The plaintiff in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A in paragraph no.12 has deposed that an amount of Rs. 22,78,418/ was released to the plaintiff after a gap of almost four years from the date of initial deductions and two years from the date of determination of contract. He further deposed that the said released amount in terms of sanction letter Ex.PW1/P was only the principle amount and nothing was paid in respect of interest on the said huge amount which was illegally deducted from the bills of plaintiff; the plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the withheld amount as he has already sent a legal notice dated 03.05.2011 Ex.PW1/N. It is further deposed that plaintiff was entitled to interest because the amount to which he was legally entitled was released after a period of more then three years and for these reasons, the plaintiff has calculated simple interest @ 12% per annum on the withheld amount and the said calculation is given in table 1 and 2 of page no.7A and 7B of the plaint. The Ld. counsel for plaintiff has clarified that the page No. 7A and 7B are attached to the main plaint and are not mentioned in the plaint. It is further clarified that he has made the table for the purpose of easy calculation of the amount to which plaintiff was entitled on account of interest on the withheld amount. It is further pointed out that table 1 is showing the interest amount on the withheld amount by the defendant on the ground of Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....15 of 19 : 16 :
non deployment of 90% of ESM as security guards. The table 2 is showing the interest amount on the withheld amount by the defendant on the ground of double duty done by the security guards.
25. In his written clarification dated 09.04.2015 the plaintiff has verified that there was slight error in the calculations shown in table no.1 and 2 filed as annexure with the plaint and has thus filed the calculated amount as table no.1 and 2 with the written clarification. It is further clarified that correct amount recoverable as find mentioned in table 1and 2 is Rs. 17,96,422/ but plaintiff has restricted the claim to the original amount claimed in the present suit i.e. Rs. 17,92,110/ alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.
26. I have gone through the amount claimed by plaintiff as interest on the withheld amount as mentioned in table no.1 and 2 which are reproduced as under: Interest on amount withheld on account of not providing 90% exserviceman as security guard.
TABLE1
Month & Year Amount Total Months SI @ 12% PA
Sep07 Rs. 50,000/ 11 Months Rs. 5500/
Oct07 Rs. 1,00,000/ 10 Months Rs. 10,000/
Nov07 Rs. 1,50,000/ 09 Months Rs. 13,500/
Dec07 Rs. 2,50,000/ 08 Months Rs. 20,000/
Jan08 Rs. 3,50,000/ 07 Months Rs. 24,500/
Feb08 Rs. 4,50,000/ 06 Months Rs. 27,000/
Mar08 Rs. 5,50,000/ 05 Months Rs. 27,500/
Apr08 Rs. 6,50,000/ 04 Months Rs. 26,000/
May08 Rs. 7,50,000/ 03 Months Rs. 22,500/
Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....16 of 19
: 17 :
Jun08 Rs. 8,50,000/ 02 Months Rs. 17,000/
July08 Rs. 9,50,000/ 01 month Rs. 9500
From Aug08 to 22.09.2011 Rs. 10,50,000/ 3 Yrs & 22 Days Rs. 3,85,594/
Total: Rs. 5,88,594/
22.09.2011 is date of payment of dues
Interest on Rs. 5,88,594/ @ 12% p.a. From 07.12.2011 (date of notice for payment of interest) to 22.03.2012, (the date of filing of suit) = Rs. 20,559/ Total Rs. 6,09,253/ Interest amount on the withheld amount on account of double duty done by security guard TABLE2 Month & Year Amount Total Months SI @ 12% PA Jan08 Rs. 72,307/ 18 Months Rs. 13,015/ Feb08 Rs. 1,73,465/ 17 Months Rs. 29,489/ Mar08 Rs. 2,84,900/ 16 Months Rs. 45,584/ Apr08 Rs. 3,84,737/ 15 Months Rs. 57,710/ May08 Rs. 4,41,583/ 14 Months Rs. 61,821/ Jun08 Rs. 4,62,088/ 13 Months Rs. 60,071/ July08 Rs.5,15,736/ 12 Months Rs. 61,888/ Aug08 Rs. 5,63,692/ 11 Months Rs. 62,006/ Sep08 do 10 Months Rs.56369/ Oct08 do 09 Months Rs.50,732/ Nov08 Rs. 6,79,862/ 08 Months Rs.54,388/ Dec08 Rs. 7,98,256/ 07 Months Rs.55,877/ Jan09 Rs. 8,93,504/ 06 Months Rs.53,610/ Feb09 Rs. 9,96,734/ 05 Months Rs.49,836/ Mar09 Rs. 10,88,761/ 04 Months Rs.43,550/ Apr09 Rs. 11,86,079/ 03 Months Rs.35,582/ May09 Rs. 12,03,488/ 02 Months Rs.24,069/ Jun09 Rs. 12,21,283/ 01 Month Rs.12,212/ July 2009 to 22.09.11 Rs. 12,28,418/ 2 Yrs 2 months & 22 Days Rs. 3,19,388/ the date of payment of dues Total: Rs.11,47,197/ Interest w.e.f. 07.12.2011 (date of notice for payment of interest) to 22.03.2012 (the date of filing of suit) i.e. 3 months and 15 days = Rs. 40,072/ Total Rs. 11,87,269/ Total of Table 1 and 2 Rs. 17,96,422/ Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....17 of 19 : 18 :
27. The claim of the plaintiff for the amount as interest on the withheld amount as find mention in table 1 and 2 referred above is the payment of sum which is ascertainable on a calculation. Therefore, it is clearly "sum certain"
within the meaning of Interest Act. It would be a debt i.e. a sum of money which is now payable. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "State of Rajasthan Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors. AIR 1979 SC 852".
28. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to sum of Rs. 17,96,422/ which is ascertained and calculated interest amount on the withheld amount by the defendant. Hence, issue no.4 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.5:
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite and future interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in issue No. 4? OPP"
29. The plaintiff in his plaint has prayed for passing a decree for Rs. 17,92,110/ being interest @12% per annum till the payment of the said amount. The plaintiff has included the interest amount from the date of legal notice till the filing of the present suit in the suit amount itself as is evident from table 1 and 2 referred above. The prayer clause shows that the plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till the suit amount is paid to him by the defendant. There is no specific denial of the said relief claimed in the plaint by the plaintiff in the WS because in the WS it is simply stated that the suit is not Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....18 of 19 : 19 :
maintainable and liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. While deciding issue no. 4 it has been held that plaintiff is entitled to suit amount of Rs. 17,92,110/. The said amount has become the principle sum adjudged. The end of justice will be met if the plaintiff will be allowed pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum under the provision of Section 34 CPC. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to claim interest @06% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount. Hence, issue no.6 is accordingly decided in above terms in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. ISSUE NO.6:
"RELIEF"
30. In view of my findings on issues no.1 to 5, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for sum of Rs. 17,92,110/ alongwith interest @ 06% per annum from the date of filing of present suit till its realization. Cost of the suit is also allowed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
31. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
32. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Dictated and announced in the
open court on 18.04.2015 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
ADJ04 (South)
Saket Courts / New Delhi
18.04.2015
Brig. R P S Shergill Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation Contd....19 of 19