Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.S.ANBALAGAN versus M.KRISHNAMURTHY

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.S.Anbalagan v. M.Krishnamurthy - WA.Nos.677 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 223 (20 January 2007)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 20.01.2007

Coram:-

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

W.A. Nos.677 and 678 of 2005

A.S.Anbalagan .. Appellant -vs-

1. M.Krishnamurthy

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu,

rep. By Secretary to Government,

Commercial Tax Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai 9.

3. The Inspector General of Registration,

Santhome High Road, Chennai 28.

4. The District Registrar,

Namakkal.

5. Kalaimagal Sabha (Regd No.16/84)

rep. By its President,

67, New Pallipalayam Road,

Komarapalayam 638 183. .. Respondents PRAYER IN W.A.No.677 OF 2005: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order made in Review Appln.No.26/2004 in WPMP SR No.21710 of 2004 in WP No.514 of 1999 dated 30.04.2004.

PRAYER IN W.A.No.678 OF 2005: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order made in WPMP SR No.21710 of 2004 in WP No.514 of 1999 dated 06.04.2004. For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,S.C. For Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For Respondents : Mr.K.Elango, Spl.G.P. (For R2 to R4)

Mr.TRK Kumarasingh (For R5) J U D G M E N T



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 06.04.2004 in WPMP SR No.21710 of 2004 in W.P.No.514 of 1999 and order dated 30.04.2004 in Rev.Appln.No.26 of 2004 in WPMP SR.No.21710 of 2004 in W.P.No.514 of 1999, the appellant, namely A.S.Anbazahan has filed the above writ appeals.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the contesting fifth respondent.

3. In view of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of the view that there is no need to refer all the factual matrix as stated by the appellant as well as the contesting parties.

4. The dispute relates to rate of interest on the amounts which were due to be paid by the appellant till the last amount of Rs.16,00,000/-, which was paid by him on 25.02.2004.

5. Learned single Judge taking note of the various aspects, by order dated 06.04.2004 in WPMP No.6024 of 2004, has issued the following direction:

"8. In the result, the petitioner/A.S.Anbalagan is directed to pay the proportionate interest at the rate of 12 per annum on the amounts which were due to be paid by him till the last amount of Rs.16,00,000/- was paid by him. The Joint Receivers are directed to calculate the interest on the amount outstanding at the end of each financial year and a working sheet of the amount due may be furnished to the petitioner due towards interest. On receipt of the said working sheet from the Joint Receivers, the petitioner is directed to pay the interest amount within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is only on the payment of entire amount thus due, the petitioner will be entitled to the return of the original documents. Petitions are ordered accordingly."

6. It is the grievance of the appellant that the agreement between the parties did not contain any condition as to the payment of interest. It is also stated that in the absence of specific provision in the agreement, the parties would be bound only by the Interest Act and under such circumstances, the appellant cannot be burdened with interest prior to payment. It is also pointed out that the learned Judge failed to take note that the property was not in fact yielding income, hence there was no justification in awarding interest, that too from the date of agreement. It is also stated that inasmuch as the appellant had acted bona fide in repaying the entire advance, the learned Judge ought not to have awarded interest.

7. We considered the above contentions and also heard the learned counsel appearing for the Joint Receiver.

8. On going through the grievance and the claim of the appellant and various details furnished regarding repayment of advance amount, we are of the view that the claim of interest at the rate of 12 is excessive and not warranted. The appellant is willing to pay interest at a reasonable rate not less than 6.

9. Taking note of all the aspects as well as the grievance as mentioned above, we are of the view that the direction for payment of interest at the rate of 6 would meet the ends of justice, which comes to Rs.4,37,159/-. In order to show his bona fide, the appellant has brought a Demand Draft for Rs.3,84,000/- when the matter was heard on 09.01.2007. Accepting the stand of the appellant, we directed the learned counsel appearing for the Joint Receiver to receive the Demand Draft for Rs.3,84,000/- and the same was duly acknowledged by the counsel as directed. As said earlier, if we calculate the interest at the rate of 6, it comes to Rs.4,37,159/- and the balance amount is Rs.53,159/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the balance amount of Rs.53,159/- was paid to the learned counsel for the Joint Receiver by way of Demand Draft on 19.01.2007. He also produced proper acknowledgement for the same. In view of the above payments, we are satisfied that no further amount need be paid towards interest. Accordingly, we modify the direction of the learned Judge in paragraph No.8 of the order dated 06.04.2004 in WPMP No.6024 of 2004. In view of compliance and payment of interest as fixed by us, the Joint Receiver is directed to return all the original documents to the appellant, namely A.S.Anbalagan, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that considering the peculiar circumstances and prompt payment made by the appellant, we constrain to reduce the rate of interest and this cannot be cited as a precedent for other cases. Both the writ appeals are ordered accordingly. No costs.

gms

To

1. The Secretary to Government,Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Tax Department,Fort St.George, Chennai 9. 2. The Inspector General of Registration,

Santhome High Road, Chennai 28.

3. The District Registrar,

Namakkal.

4. President,Kalaimagal Sabha (Regd No.16/84)

67, New Pallipalayam Road,

Komarapalayam 638 183.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.