- (1.) IN substance, this petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for claiming an interest on delayed release of surcharge and power subsidy. In all, the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 40,23,965.80 paise by way of their claim of interest on delayed payment of surcharge and Rs. 36,19,752/ - on delayed release of subsidy amount, thereby claiming a total sum of Rs. 1,23,62,384.95 paise by way of interest amount. It is claimed in the petition that due to delay on the part of Board in releasing the amount under these two heads, the petitioner was deprived in its enjoyment in time and hence, it entitled to claim the interest.
(2.) THE Board has denied the claim of the petitioner in toto so far as the issue of surcharge is concerned : it is contended by the Board that it is already settled even prior to filing of this writ and petitioner themselves have given an undertaking to that effect in writing (Annexure A -2). The Board has then contended that in fact there remains no cause of action to file this writ because the amount under both the heads have been released. Heard Shri SC Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in the writ and hence, it deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) THIS writ is filed essentially for claiming interest on account of delayed payment of certain amount. A right to claim interest is governed by usage -custom or by contract or by statute. It was so laid down by the Privy Council in one of its leading case reported in AIR 1938 PC B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji. This is what was laid down : 'The crucial question, however, is whether the Court has authority to allow interest for the period prior to the institution of the suit: and the solution of this question depends, not upon the Civil Procedure Code, but upon substantive law. Now, interest for the period prior to the date of the suit may be awarded, if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at a fixed rate, or it is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law, or under the provision of any substantive law entitling the plaintiff to recover interest, as for instance, under S. 80, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court may award interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, when no rate of interest is specified in the promissory note or bill of exchange. There is in the present case neither usage nor any contract express or implied to justify the award of interest. Nor is interest payable by virtue of any provision of the law governing the case. Under the Interest Act, 32 of 1839, the Court may allow interest to the plaintiff, if the amount claimed is a sum certain which is payable at a certain time by virtue of a written instrument. But it is conceded that the amount claimed in this case was not a sum certain. The interest Act, however, contains a proviso that interest shall be payable in all cases in which it is now payable by law. This proviso applies to cases in which the Court of equity exercises jurisdiction to allow interest." ;