UNION OF INDIA Vs. WATKINS MAYOR AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by :

(2.) BOTH these appeals are brought from the judgment and decree of the High court of Judicature of the State of Punjab, dated 31/03/1960 in Regular First Appeal No. 121 of 1953 by certificates granted by the High court under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

(3.) THE same view has been expressed by this court in a later case-Union of India v. Rallia Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1685-in which the respondent had claimed from the Dominion of India, compensation in respect of the goods delivered to him under the contract, Interest on the amounts raised by him for carrying out the contract and for incidental expenses incurred by him after delivery of the goods. THE dispute was referred to arbitration and the award granted to the respondent three sums of money on the following heads: (1) loss suffered by the respondent in respect of goods not returned by him computed on the basis of difference between the price paid and price received by him on sale, (2) incidental charges on account of expenses incurred on advertisement, storage, agency commission, etc., (8) interest on sum refunded to respondent in respect of returned packets. It was held by this court that the award of interest under the third head could not be sustained as the contract did not provide for payment of interest in respect of amounts paid by the respondent if me contract fell through. Nor could interest be awarded under S. 61 of the Sale of Goods Act or under the Interest Act on grounds of equity. In the absence of any usage or contract express or implied, or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest, the arbitrator cannot award interest by way of damages caused to the respondent for wrongful detention of money. Applying the principle to the present case, it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for interest to the extent of Rs. 2,974-2-0 claimed by him in the plaint and, therefore, the decree granted by the High court in favour of the plaintiff should be reduced to this extent.