Skip to content


K. Venkat Reddiar and Co. Vs. Desikachariar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Mad1279; 92Ind.Cas.354
AppellantK. Venkat Reddiar and Co.
RespondentDesikachariar
Cases Referred and Arunachalam Chettiar v. Rajeswara Setupati
Excerpt:
interest act (xxxii of 18s9), section 1 - interest--absence of demand--general principles. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read along with sub-section (12) of section 19 of recovery of debts due to..........wrong in refusing 'interest' to the petitioner. interest is claimed under the interest act and on general principles of law.2. in view of the finding that there was no demand for interest by the plaintiff, the plea that he is entitled to interest under the interest act cannot be accepted.3. the next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on general principles of law. it is well-known that under the rules of english common law, interest is not due on money, unless interest was intended to be paid or unless it is implied from the usage of trade, as in the case of mercantile instruments. applying this principle, the petitioner is not entitled to interest in this case because the learned judge in para. 4 finds that the parties commenced dealings on the assumption that no.....
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The plaintiff's suit was to recover principal and interest on account of dealings carried on between him and the defendant from the 22nd May 1916 to the 10th of December 1922. The plaintiff has been given a decree for Rs. 196 but he has not been awarded interest on that amount. The question in this case is whether the lower Court was wrong in refusing 'interest' to the petitioner. Interest is claimed under the Interest Act and on general principles of law.

2. In view of the finding that there was no demand for interest by the plaintiff, the plea that he is entitled to interest under the interest Act cannot be accepted.

3. The next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on general principles of law. It is well-known that under the rules of English Common Law, interest is not due on money, unless interest was intended to be paid or unless it is implied from the usage of trade, as in the case of mercantile instruments. Applying this principle, the petitioner is not entitled to interest in this case because the learned Judge in para. 4 finds that the parties commenced dealings on the assumption that no interest would be demanded. This finding that interest was not intended to be paid is supported by the evidence of D.W. No. 1. Accepting this finding, I am of opinion that plaintiff is not entitled to interest even under the general principles of the Common Law.

4. The decision in Muhammad Abdul Gaffur Rowther v. Hamida Beevi Ammal 52 Ind. Cas. 505 (1919) M.W.N. 484 : 25 M.L.T. 242 : 36 M.L.J. 456 and Arunachalam Chettiar v. Rajeswara Setupati 71 Ind. Cas. 257 : 15 L.W. 63 are inapplicable to the present case, inasmuch as it has been found that interest was not intended to be charged, when the parties commenced their dealings. I may also mention that interest has not been claimed, based on the usage of trade.

5. I think, therefore, that the decision of the lower Court is right. I dismiss this revision, petition with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //