DECMAE Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N. Pai, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 27.12.2007 passed by the learned District Judge at Panaji, in Civil Suit No. 14/2007 whereby the suit filed by the appellant was partly decreed and the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,53,037/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 28.06.2003 until the actual payment.

(2.) Mr. A. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment only on the ground that the respondents have illegally withheld the amount payable to the appellant pursuant to the determination of a sum of Rs. 2,53,037/- from the year 2003 which resulted in gross loss to the appellant. The learned counsel further. pointed out that as such amount was not received by the appellant an overdraft facility which was availed by the appellant from the Federal Bank had to be kept alive which resulted in paying interest ranging from 11% to 16% per annum. The learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant has also sought for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per year for the delay in the payment of such amount. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has granted interest only at the rate of 6% per annum on a spacious ground that the Government was involved. The learned counsel further pointed out that the delay in effecting such amount according to the respondents is due to administrative reason. The learned counsel further pointed out that these reasons are not justifiable the delay in the payment to the appellant who had admittedly carried out the work for the respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that the department to whom the work was carried out by the appellant had determined that the amount of Rs. 2,53,037/- was payable to the appellant as on 28.06.2003. The learned counsel as such submits that withholding the said amount has resulted in gross loss to the appellant and as such the impugned judgment to the extent of granting interest at the rate of 6% per annum deserves to be quashed and set aside and the interest at the rate of 18% per annum is to be awarded.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. N. Pai, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has pointed out that this is not a commercial transaction and as such in terms of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, the question of granting any interest more than 6% would not arise. The learned counsel further pointed out that there was delay in executing the work by the appellant and as such the question of granting enhanced rate of interest would not arise. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge was justified to grant the relief as awarded in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has thereafter pointed out that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that there was breach committed by the appellant, the question of granting enhanced interest would not arise. The learned counsel as such submits that the above appeal deserves to be rejected.