DEVIDAS MANHARLAL DADIYA Vs. AHER GHELUBHAI RAMBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Shahs second contention is that in any event the plaintiff would be entitled to interest if not at 15% per annum as claimed at reasonable rate not exceeding the current rate of interest from the date of the demand made by the plaintiff of his dues from the defendant which demand was made on 13/06/1967 from the defendant telegraphically with interest. As per the provisions contained in sec. 1 of the Interest Act the creditor would be entitled to interest which the Court may think fit to allow at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest from the time when demand of payment has been made in writing so as such demand shall give notice to the debtor that the interest will be claimed from the date of such demand until such payment. The telegram is not on record and it is therefore not possible to ascertain whether it did contain demand in terms as set out in the provisions contained in sec. 1 of the Interest Act. It is true that the defendant did admit that he received the telegram by which the amount was demanded with interest. But the defendant in his evidence states that he demanded the amount of Rs. 6 725 and interest by the said telegram. Unless the contents of the telegram are scrutinised it would be difficult to decide as to whether it contains the type of demand as is envisaged by the provisions of sec. 1 of the Interest Act. Again the telegram was sent in the year 1967 while the suit was filed in June 1971 and in such circumstances it would be difficult to uphold MR. Shahs claim for interest at reasonable rate not exceeding the current rate from the date of the telegram.

(2.) BUT Mr. Shah is on a firmer footing when he submits that atleast from the date of the notice of demand dated 8/11/1970 which is on record at Exh. 52 served by the plaintiff on the defendant interest should be allowed to the plaintiff. The approach of the lower appellate court in this connection was erroneous inasmuch as it was under an impression that unless a specific demand claiming the interest at specific rate was made the plaintiff would not be entitled to interest. It is true that the notice merely demands the amount with interest *** and does not mention the rate at which the interest is to be charged. BUT that does not mean the Court will not be entitled to grant interest if the conditions laid down in sec. I of the Interest Act are satisfied as they are in the instant case. They are two viz. (1) claim for interest on non-payment of the debt (2) Non-payment in spite of such a claim. There is no provision that the claim of interest has to be made at a specified rate of interest. This is therefore a fit case in which the plaintiff should be awarded interest from the date of his demand notice dated 8-70 till the date of filing of the suit i. e. 14-6-71 on the balance amount i.e. Rs. 2 674 [ Rest of the judgment is not material for the reports. ] Appeal partly allowed.