Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

­

1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on 03.08.2010. The brief facts of the suit as narrated in the Plaint are as follows:­ "Defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of CS No. 157/13/10 Rajinder Kaur Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

14. The counsel for defendant has argued that the suit is barred by CS No. 157/13/10 Rajinder Kaur Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

limitation as the plaintiff is seeking recovery of amount paid by her on 06.06.2006 whereas the suit was filed on 03.08.2010 i.e. after the expiry of three years. But the counsel for plaintiff has vehemently argued that the suit is not at all barred by limitation as firstly the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held on 22.01.2014 in Swapna Bhattacharya Vs. M­Tech Developers Ltd., Co.PET. 54/2013 & CA No.141­142/2013 that the contention that the cause of action arose on the day of payment by plaintiff and suit being thus barred by limitation, is wholly erroneous and that after coming to know about the non­construction of project, the petitioner could make a claim only after reasonable period for construction had elapsed and secondly the defendant by issuing letter dated 22.01.2009 i.e. Ex.PW1/6, had acknowledged the liability and thus as per Sec.18 Limitation Act, the fresh period of limitation started from 22.01.2009. I find force in the contention of counsel for plaintiff. Thus as per the above­said case­law the period of limitation could not be calculated from the date of payment of booking amount by plaintiff and secondly even if the contention of CS No. 157/13/10 Rajinder Kaur Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

CS No. 157/13/10 Rajinder Kaur Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

16. Now the question arises that from which date the interest should be awarded? The plaintiff has claimed interest from the date of booking i.e. from 06.06.2006. But the counsel for defendant, while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Zile Singh Vs. Mangloo Ram Bansal, RSA No.195/04, has vehemently argued that the interest, if awarded, could not be awarded from the date prior to the date of legal notice although the defendant has denied the receipt of legal notice. Let us first take up, before taking up the point relating to ascertaining the date from which interest could be awarded, the issue raised by the defendant's counsel regarding non­service of legal notice. The defendant has simply denied the service of legal notice in Written Statement. It is settled law that once the letter is sent through registered post at correct address and AD card is received back bearing some signatures, the presumption is drawn about its service upon the addressee unless the same is rebutted. It is held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Smt. Bhavneshwari Devi Vs. Kalyan Singh, 1993 (2) RCR (Rent) 330 that presumption of service arises in law if the AD card of CS No. 157/13/10 Rajinder Kaur Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

In the present case, there is no written instrument under which the CS No. 157/13/10 Rajinder Kaur Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.

debt is payable at a certain time. The plaintiff has also not averred in the Plaint that there was any usage having the force of law regarding payment of interest. It is already held that there was no agreement between the parties regarding payment of interest. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is falling under Sec.3(1)(b) of Interest Act and the plaintiff could be awarded interest from the date of written notice of demand. Now it is pertinent to mention here that prior to issuance of legal notice Ex.PW1/7, the plaintiff had already raised demand in writing for refund of her amount vide Surrender Application dated 22.01.2009 i.e. Ex.PW1/5. This Court is of considered opinion that the said Surrender Application is equivalent to written notice as contemplated under Sec.3(1)(b) of Interest Act. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim pre­suit interest w.e.f. 22.01.2009. Though the plaintiff has claimed interest @15% per annum, but this Court is of the considered opinion that it is on the higher side and that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if plaintiff is granted interest (pre­suit and pendent­lite) @12% per annum i.e. from CS No. 157/13/10 Rajinder Kaur Anand Vs. M/s. M. Tech Developers Ltd.