Delhi District Court
M/S. Star Forms vs Integrated Diseases Surveillance ... on 6 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE04, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.614286/16
M/s. STAR Forms
Through its Partner Mr. Arunesh Bansal,
at 3588, G.T. Road, Old Subzi Mandi,
Delhi - 110007. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP)
Through its Chairman/Managing Director/
Director/State S.O.
Registered Office at
F17, Karkardooma,
Delhi - 110032.
2. Chairman, State Health Society,
O/o, The Principal Secretary (Health),
9th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110002.
3. Mission Director,
Delhi State Health Mission,
State Health Society,
Vikas Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110002.
Suit No.614286/16
M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 1 of 21
4. Director (NCDC)
Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP)
22, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi - 110054. ......Defendants
Date of Institution : 02.07.2012
Date of Arguments : 02.05.2019
Date of Judgment : 06.05.2019
Suit for recovery of Rs.2,66,409/
JUDGMENT
The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.7,14,909/ against the defendants. Initially the suit was filed under Order XXXVII CPC. However the summons were sent on the defendants under ordinary civil recovery suit in terms of order dated 11.08.2014. Thereafter WS was filed by the defendants on 16.12.2014 and on the same date issues were framed in the suit.
2. Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of printing and supplying stationary printed forms. Defendants placed order no.3(1)/DSP/PH/SHS/2008/26 dated 05.12.2008 and Bill No.R1095 dated 05.01.2009 for Rs.4,48,500/. The bills were never disputed however defendants had failed to make payment for the principal sum and they are also liable to pay Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 2 of 21 interest @ 18% p.a. after 15 days of receipt of invoice. Plaintiff has claimed 18% interest in para no.4 of plaint. The defendant did not pay despite service of legal notice dated 01.09.2011 which was also replied by the defendants dated 18.10.2011. In reply it is admitted by the defendants that the payment is under process and likely to be made between the financial year 20112012. The defendants did not pay. Hence the present suit is filed. Pendente lite and future interest alongwith costs of the suit is also prayed.
3. In the joint WS filed by defendants 1 to 3 it is submitted that the Chairman State Health Society had granted sanction to get the material printed and also the estimated expenditure. The same had to be printed from the plaintiff. The bills were submitted by the plaintiff on February,2009. The cheques were prepared and signed by State Surveillance Officer. However second signatory the Mission Director State Health Society had raised some objections and cheques could not be signed due to which delay had occurred. The Director had approved the liability vide letter dated 04.02.2011 on March, 2011 when the fresh cheques were signed. The cheques were signed in the month of April for a sum of Rs.4,61,244/ in favour of the plaintiff vide no.127666 and another cheque no.127667 for a sum of Rs.4,39,530/ was delivered to the plaintiff alongwith Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 3 of 21 TDS cheque no.127668 for a sum of Rs.18,383/. It is denied that defendants are liable to pay the invoice amount within 15 days of its receipt. Liability of any interest is also denied as it was never subject matter of any agreement between the parties. The invoice raised were pending for verification of quantity and quality after supply of material. Accordingly, it is prayed by defendants no.1 to 3 that suit may be dismissed.
4. In the WS filed by defendant no.4 the contract between the parties is admitted and also the legal notice dated 01.09.2011. It is submitted that Central Surveillance Unit, IDSP, Director NCDC does not have any role in purchase made by State Health Society. The legal notice was forwarded to State Health Society on 29.09.2011. Defendant no.4 did not place any order with the plaintiff. However defendant no.4 has disputed correctness of the bill and asserted right of defendant no.4 to raise objection on the invoice. The liability to pay interest is denied on delayed payment. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed with costs.
5. On the pleadings of the parties and averments made following issues were framed in the suit on 16.12.2014 which are reproduced as under: Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 4 of 21
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.7,14,909/ as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate and for what period?
3. Whether the suit is without cause of action? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case? OPD
7. Relief.
6. Plaintiff has got examined Sh. Tarunesh Bansal, Partner as PW1 who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 and Mark A & B. Sh. Manish Kumar, Data Entry Operator has deposed as PW2 who has produced Form A and Form B of the plaintiff company vide Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2. The PE was closed on 15.09.2018 vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. The defendants has not led any evidence in defence despite grant of opportunity since 15.09.2018 and even evidence by way of affidavit Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 5 of 21 was not filed or supplied to opposite party. On this account the DE of defendants was closed vide order of the Court dated 25.04.2019.
7. Arguments are heard and record perused.
8. The issuewise findings are as under:
9. Issue no.1 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.7,14,909/ as prayed for? OPP 9.1 This findings under issues no.2 below are equally applicable under the present issue and be read as part of the present issue. The same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
9.2 The plaintiff has already received the principal amount from the defendants even before summons are received by the defendants and consequent amendment was allowed by the present Court vide order dated 06.10.2012 on admitted receipt of principal sum by the plaintiff in the amendment application dated 06.10.2012. The plaintiff has already received the principal amount of Rs.4,48,500/ from the defendants on 13.06.2012. Hence no issue arises as to recovery of principal amount against the defendants which is already received by the plaintiff. Issue remains pertaining to pending presuit and pendente lite & future Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 6 of 21 interest only which is separately dealt with under issue no.2 below. The principal amount claimed by the plaintiff is alongwith interest. Hence findings under issue no.2 has determined the issue of interest between the parties. In these circumstances of the case the present issue as far as recovery of principal amount is concerned has since been satisfied and deemed admitted by the defendants on such payment. The defendant no.4 has denied his liability being central agency who is not directly involved with the plaintiff for the contractual terms executed between plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 3. However this remains a question of fact. The defendant no.4 has not led any evidence in this respect nor cross examined the plaintiff witness PW1. Hence defendant no.4 has failed to substantiate the above plea on record and the same stands rejected. Accordingly present issue is decided for principal sum in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. As to presuit, pendente lite and future interest issue no.2 may be referred.
10. Issue no.2Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate and for what period?
10.1 The burden of proof of this issue is on the plaintiff. Initially the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.7,14,909/ of which Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 7 of 21 part amount was already received by the plaintiff during pendency of the suit and for balance amount amendment was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2012. Hence the balance amount claimed in the amended suit is Rs.2,66,409/. The defendants have not disputed payment of principal amount to the plaintiff in cross examination of PW1. PW1 has admitted in crossexamination of having received entire principal payment. The principal amount is mentioned in the invoice Ex.PW1/2 which is a sum of Rs.4,48,500/. PW1 had also sent legal notice to the defendants vide Ex.PW1/3 of which reply was also sent by the defendants vide Ex.PW1/4.
10.2 In invoice Ex.PW1/2 it is mentioned that interest has to be charged @ 18% p.a. if payment is not made within 15 days. Hence on nondenial of receipt of said invoice and receipt of goods payment of interest as part of contract is proved on record as admitted fact. However the interest cannot be excessive which would otherwise be against public policy. The payment of interest has to be justified under Sec.34 CPC which is paid on account of deprivation of due amount to the plaintiff for such wrongful gain by the defendant and wrongful loss to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is required to show that by such withholding of interest he has suffered such loss in his natural course of business. Plaintiff has Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 8 of 21 not produced any record of such loss except statement on oath in affidavit. The interest @ 18% p.a. is excessive keeping in view lower rate of interest prevailing in the market since last few years. In such view of the matter the payment on interest has to be considered in the light of interest prevailing in the market since last two years in absence of any other evidence on the record. 10.3 It is held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that even when the claim of interest is barred under the contract between the parties even then interest can be awarded. The bar under the contract would be against public policy. Hence even in absence of contract between the parties interest can be awarded for the reason that a person has wrongfully withheld for wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to other person for such keeping the rightful dues of the payment. Hence interest needs to be granted in the present case to the plaintiff and against the defendants even though there is absence of contract. The relevant citation is reproduced here as under : "M/s. Pt. Munshi Ram & Asso.P.Ltd. vs Delhi Development Authority on 27 October, 2009 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi vide Ex. App. (OS) 144/2009 In Ex.P. 196/2006 as follows :
3. In the present case the court below has committed a complete illegality in holding that the contract in question contains a clause of prohibition of payment of interest on delayed payment Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 9 of 21 inasmuch as there is no such clause in the contract order of the year 2002 which is pointed out to this Court. In any case, assuming that there is a clause for denial of interest, I have held in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s N.K.Garg & Co.
(2015) 224 DLT 668 that any clause by which a person is denied interest on amount due, then such a clause will be illegal and hit by the provision of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Detailed reasons have been given by this Court in the judgment in the case of N.K.Garg (supra) and are adopted by this Court and it is held that the arbitrator is not barred from awarding interest even if there is a clause in the contract that interest cannot be awarded."
10.4 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down that the interest should not be awarded at unreasonably high rate and it should not be excessive. In the present case the defendants even before issuance of summons had made the payment of principal amount to the plaintiff for which plaintiff has got the suit amended only for the interest amount. The legal notice dated 01.09.2011 Ex.PW1/3 was issued to the defendants to pay the amount within seven days. The suit was filed on 02.07.2012. In the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is held entitled to interest for the period and at such rate which was wrongfully withheld by the defendants in view of citation titled M/s. Sangat Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Wimpy International Ltd. on 17 January, 2012 Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 10 of 21 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No.657/2003 which is as follows: "6. Though, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has not argued one aspect with respect to the interest, I however feel in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant/plaintiff ought not to be granted interest at 24% per annum for the presuit period and at 18% per annum pendente lite and future as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. I may note that the Supreme Court in the recent catena of judgments reported as Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has held that the Courts should be alive to the change of interest regime, and Courts should reduce the unnecessary high rates of interest, especially considering the long pendency of litigation. A Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pandit Munshi Ram Associates vs. DDA 2010 (9) AD (Delhi) 313, has also held that the rate of interest for the presuit period, if the same is unnecessarily excessive, is violative of public policy."
10.5 It is own case of the plaintiff that he has received Rs.4,48,500/ from the defendants on 13.06.2012. The suit was Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 11 of 21 filed on 02.07.2012. Interest is mentioned over invoice Ex.PW1/2 @ 18% p.a. as filed on record. Hence the plaintiff is held entitled to interest only for the period due since the 15 days thereafter from the receipt of invoice. The nature of transaction was commercial between the parties. However, it is against public policy to grant interest on interest. The relevant citation is reproduced here as under : "State Bank Of India vs Shri Umanath Ganpat Nadkarni And ... on 9 April, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 (3) BomCR 696
10. In N.M. Veerappa v. Canara Bank and others (supra), the Apex Court held that section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to simple money decrees and payments of interest pending such suits. Order 34, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure deals with mortgage suits and payment of interest. It is therefore obvious that so far as mortgage suits are concerned, the special provision in Order 34, Rule 11 alone would be applicable and not Section 34.
11. In Union Bank of India v. M/s. Noor Dairy Farm and others (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the Supreme Court has observed in the case of Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda and another (supra), that in the case of agricultural loan the bank cannot charge compound interest at 3 months or half yearly rests. It was further held that in view of the said decision of the Apex Court, it is not permissible for the Banks to charge interest at halfyearly rests in case of Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 12 of 21 agricultural loans and in such cases there is no scope for claiming compound interest with periodical rests.
13. Section 34(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where and insofar as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit. The proviso to the said section states that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged has arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which monies are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. The Explanation II defines a transaction to be a commercial transaction if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability. Subsection (2) of Section 34 provides that where a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal amount from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie.
14. Section 34 apparently deals with the liability Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 13 of 21 to pay interest in money suits during the pendency of the suit as well as after the disposal of the suit till the payment of the entire amount. It does not relate to the interest prior to the filing of the suit as it is a matter of substantive law and it is outside the scope of the said section. In other words, Section 34 empowers the Court to award interest pending the suit and after the disposal of the suit. This is also clear from subSection (2) of the said section wherein it is provided that when a decree is silent about the payment of interest from the date of decree, it shall be deemed that the Court has refused to grant such interest and the decree holder would not be entitled to file any separate suit in respect of such claim. As regards the interest during the pendency of the suit, the section itself provides that the Court "may order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable". Therefore, the rate of payment of interest has been made a matter of discretion, of course, to be exercised judiciously by the Court.
15. It is thus clear that the grant of interest under Section 34 is a matter of discretion and is to be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The trial Court in the case in hand has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of payment of the entire amount. The materials on record do not disclose any justification for grant of any interest at the rate beyond 6% awarded by the trial Court. In order to enable the trial Court to grant the interest beyond the rate of 6% it was necessary for the appellant to place on record the materials justifying the same. The appellant, therefore, is not Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 14 of 21 entitled for contractual rate of interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment of the entire amount.
20. As regards the third question, it is clearly covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahadeo Rama Bhonsle and others v. Central Bank of India and another (supra). It has been clearly held therein that the amount of interest is to be calculated on the principal sum only and not the principal sum plus the interest accrued till the filing of the suit. The decree as far as it awards the interest on the total sum of Rs. 1,03,088/ which includes interest on the amount till the date of filing of the suit has to be modified so as to restrict the same to the principal sum of Rs. 95,000/ only. In other words, the appellant shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 15.5% per annum for a period from 3061992 till 23111992 on the total sum of Rs. 95,000/."
Hence the defendants are liable to pay interest only upto the date of the payment of principal and not interest on interest. The moment the principal amount is paid the accruing of interest has stopped hence the plaintiff is held entitled to interest only for such period and rate as held above.
10.6 The plaintiff has claimed interest for the period from 28.01.2009 till 13.06.2012 when the payment of principal was received. Bills of the plaintiff are dated 05.01.2009. It cannot be believed that the said bills were delivered within the same day.
Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 15 of 21Atleast one week's time needs to be counted for such delivery of bills to the defendants. Defendant has not denied receipt of such bills from the plaintiff and there is no crossexamination in respect of receipt of bill from the plaintiff. It is deposed by PW1 at para no.7 that as per invoice defendants were liable to pay within 15 days of the date of invoice failing which they will be liable for interest. PW1 has deposed that vide Ex.PW1/2 the invoice there is written agreement for payment of interest. Hence keeping in view the lower rate of interest since last few years the plaintiff is held entitled to presuit interest against the defendants @ 6 % p.a. The plaintiff is also held entitled to pendente lite of future interest on due amount at the same rate. In such circumstances of the case, interest can be allowed to the plaintiff only after 15 days of receipt of invoice and goods thereon. The defendants have neither disputed the date of invoice nor receipt of goods as alleged by the plaintiff and therefore defendants are liable to pay interest to the plaintiff atleast from 20.01.2009 till such amount is received by the plaintiff on 13.06.2012 @ 6% p.a. under Sec.34 CPC on the due principal amount for a sum of Rs.4,48,500/. Plaintiff is also held entitled to the cost of the suit. Present issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 16 of 2111. Issue no.3Whether the suit is without cause of action? OPD 11.1 The burden of proof of the present issue is on the defendants. It is pleaded by defendants no.1 to 3 that the present suit is liable to be dismissed for absence of cause of action with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has pleaded cause of action in para no.10 of the plaint when bill no.R1095 dated 05.01.2009 was raised for a sum of Rs.4,48,500/. It arose on 01.09.2011 when legal notice was issued to the defendants both for payment of principal and interest. The cause of action arose when reply was given by the defendant on 18.10.2011. Hence plaintiff has necessarily pleaded the cause of action. In evidence of PW1 there is no crossexamination in respect of the above cause of action. The defendants have paid the principal amount after filing of the present suit. The payment itself reflects the presence of cause of action. Hence it is held that defendants have failed to discharge burden of proof levied upon them in that there is absence of cause of action. Hence the present issue fails and accordingly decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 17 of 2112. Issue no.4Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD The burden of proof of the present issue is on the defendants. It is pleaded by defendants no.1 to 3 that the present suit is liable to be dismissed for concealment and suppression of material facts by the plaintiff. However it is nowhere pleaded that what are the facts concealed by the plaintiff which are true and material for just decision of the case to obtain undue advantage over the defendants. Defendant no.4 has not raised this issue. The defendants have not led any evidence in this regard and on this account the present issue fails. No crossexamination is made in respect of this issue to the sole witness of plaintiff the PW1. Hence the present issue fails. The suit was filed on 02.07.2012 and amendment in the suit was allowed on 06.10.2012 on receipt of principal amount by the plaintiff. The payment was allegedly received for a sum of Rs.4,48,500/ by the plaintiff after filing of the present suit. The payment was received on 13.06.2012. This fact is nowhere disputed by the defendants even in the evidence of the plaintiff. Hence no material concealment on the part of plaintiff is proved by the defendants. Accordingly present issue is decided against the defendants and Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 18 of 21 in favour of the plaintiff.
13. Issue no.5Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPD The burden of proof of the present issue is on the defendants. It is pleaded by defendants no.1 to 3 that the present suit is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties. However it is nowhere pleaded that who was the necessary party in the suit which are not impleaded. Defendant no.4 has raised this issue however no evidence is led by defendant no.4 in this respect. The defendant no.4 has not cross examined PW1. The defendants have not led any evidence in this regard and on this account the present issue fails. No crossexamination is made in respect of this issue to the sole witness of plaintiff which is PW1. The defendants were required to prove that which are the other necessary parties without which the present suit cannot be decided. What was required to be adjudged in respect of such other parties. No crossexamination in this respect is done to PW1 in fact it is suggested to PW1 that he has already received the entire principal amount from the defendant. Therefore it is held that defendants have failed to discharge burden of proof levied upon them and there is no misjoinder of necessary parties.
Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 19 of 21Hence the present issue fails and accordingly decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
14. Issue no.6Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case? OPD It is pleaded by defendants no.1 to 3 that present Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction as amount involved in the present case is less. Defendant no.4 has not raised this issue. The defendants have not led any evidence in this regard and on this account the present issue fails. No crossexamination is made in respect of this issue to the sole witness of plaintiff the PW1. Further, initially the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.7,14,909/ of which part amount was already received by the plaintiff during pendency of the suit and for balance amount amendment was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2012. Hence the balance amount claimed in the amended suit is Rs.2,66,409/. The present issue is already decided vide order of Ld. District Judge (North) dated 15.01.2013 in the present case that merely because part of the suit amount has come to be paid it will not take against the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and try the suit. Hence the said finding has become final and binding between the parties and resjudicata at this stage. Hence the Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 20 of 21 present issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
15. Relief In view of above facts and circumstances, plaintiff is held entitled to interest atleast from 20.01.2009 till such amount is received by the plaintiff on 13.06.2012 @ 6% p.a. both as pre suit interest and as pendente lite & future interest under Sec.34 CPC on the principal amount already received for a sum of Rs.4,48,500/.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 06.05.2019 (JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE04, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT/DELHI Suit No.614286/16 M/s. Star Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 21 of 21