Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Appeal vs Hotel Garudadri (Private) ... on 31 July, 2023

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                           APPEAL SUIT NO.74 OF 2009

                                       IN/AND

                    I.A.No.4 OF 2009 (X-OBJS.12414 OF 2009)

JUDGMENT:

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure,

1908 (for short 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the appellant/3rd defendant challenging

the decree and Judgment dated 18.09.2008 in O.S. No.31 of 2005 passed

by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'the trial

court'). Contrary to the Appeal Suit, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed cross

objections questioning not granting interest by the trial Court.

2. 1st respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No.31 of

2005 seeking recovery of Rs.24,35,638/- being the principal and interest

due to the plaintiff for the supply of wooden dining tables and wooden din-

ing benches to the 3rd defendant office with future interest at 12% p.a.

Respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. Per the or-

ders in I.A. No.1 of 2022, dated 04.01.2023, the 4th respondent is im-

pleaded in this Appeal.

3. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial

Court.

4. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under:

(a) The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of

wooden furniture in the name and style of 'Mahalakshmi Trading

Company at Hyderabad'. The 3rd defendant called for quotations re-

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

garding the supply of long wooden dining benches and wooden dining

tables to the Ashram Schools under their control. The plaintiff sub-

mitted their quotations specifying the rates of the required material.

The 3rd defendant accepted the plaintiff's quotation and placed an

order for 265 sets of wooden dining tables and dining benches. The

specification for the furniture was set at 6 feet in length, 1½ feet in

width, and 2 ½ feet in height. It is also stipulated that the supplied

stock must meet the specified requirements, and the payment would

be made two months after the material was delivered, subject to

budget availability.

(b) After receiving the material, the 3rd defendant verified the quality

and quantity acknowledged the receipt and issued proceedings

Rc.No.A/5796/01-iii on 21.08.2002, officially sanctioning the order.

In compliance with the 3rd defendant's instructions, the plaintiff then

delivered the wooden material to the Ashram Schools under proper

acknowledgment from the Headmasters of the respective schools. The

plaintiff supplied 265 sets of dining tables as per the order. However,

the 3rd defendant made only payments for 100 sets of dining tables.

The 3rd defendant failed to pay 165 sets amounting to Rs.18,17,640/-

including the sales tax payable to the Commercial Tax Dept., which

accounts for Rs.1,34,640/-. The plaintiff demanded the defendants

several times for payment of the outstanding amount. But their ef-

forts were in vain. The 3rd defendant, in response, asked for addition-

al information regarding the transaction through their letters dated

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

17.03.2005. The plaintiff wrongfully provided all the required infor-

mation, but the 3rd defendant failed to pay despite receiving the ne-

cessary details. Finally, the plaintiff issued a legal notice under sec-

tion 80 of C.P.C. on 14.03.2005, demanding the defendant settle the

balance. However, the defendants neither replied to the notice nor

complied with the payment demand.

5. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement, adopted by defendants

1 and 2, contending that the 3rd defendant called for quotations for the

supply of wooden dining tables and wooden dining benches to the Ashram

Schools. The plaintiff has submitted the quotations at higher rates. The

then Project Officer formed a committee and placed a supply order

09.05.2002 for 265 sets of wooden dining tables with certain specifica-

tions. Still, the Divisional Manager, G.C.C., has called for the quotations,

and the purchasing committee has accepted the rates. It is a fact that the

lowest rates had been accepted, and a supply order was placed by the then

Project Officer and the plaintiff supplied poor-quality material. The plain-

tiff, the then Project Officer and other purchasing committee members col-

luded with purchases to inflate the purchase rates. The Commissioner of

Industries, AP, constituted a Multi-Disciplinary Committee (for short

'MDC') with the District Legal Officer on 27.12.2003. According to the

MDC's assessment, the correct rate for each set was determined to be

Rs.4,400/-. Accordingly, the total amount for 165 sets supplied would be

Rs.3,30,000/-. However, the Department has paid Rs.13,55,804/-, result-

ing in the excess payment of Rs.9,74,834/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

failed to respond to the notice issued by the department on 09.06.2005.

The plaintiff has not given a legal notice, and the sending of a reply notice

does not arise. The supply orders did not include any stipulation for pay-

ment of interest.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following

issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff has supplied the material to the 3rd defendant as per the specifications and standards mentioned in the supply order placed by the third defendant?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount? (3) To what relief?

7. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were ex-

amined and got marked Exs.A1 to A.26. On behalf of the defendants,

D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B.13.

8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both

sides, the trial Court partly decreed the suit with proportionate costs for

Rs.16,83,000/- against the 3rd defendant with interest thereon at 6% per

annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant contends that

the trial Court ought to have directed both the parties to substantiate the

respective rates of wooden tables for Rs.10,200/- and Rs.4,400/- particu-

larly concerning the variety of wood on the date of supply, i.e., on

07.02.2002. The trial Court committed a grave error in applying the

'Principle of Estoppel' based on an officer's admission regarding the condi-

tion of the goods.

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

10. Per contra, the plaintiff enterprises/cross objector filed cross-

objections in this Appeal, contending that the appellant vides proceedings

dt.09.05.2002 called for material supply to the Ashram Schools. One of the

conditions clearly states that the payment will be made after two months,

subject to budget availability, following the material supply. Therefore, it is

the appellant's responsibility to make the payments within the stipulated

time frame. In light of the appellant's failure to make payment, the plaintiff

claims they are entitled to receive the due amount along with 12% interest

from the date of supply until the date of realization. Hence, the trial court

erred in not granting the interest that the cross objector is entitled to.

11. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by

the Trial Court and in light of the rival contentions and submissions made

on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for deter-

mination:

I. Whether the plaintiff supply the material without dev- iation from the specifications and standards men- tioned in the supply order?

II. Whether the trial Court justified in not awarding the interest at 12% per annum from the date of supply to the date of realization?

POINT NO.I:

12. The following facts are either admitted or undisputed:

a. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturer and sale of

furniture. The 3rd defendant called for quotations for the supply of

wooden dining benches and tables to the Ashram Schools under its

control. The plaintiff submitted quotations for the required articles,

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

specifying the rates of the material. Based on the proceedings in

Ex.A.1, issued by the Project Officer, it is evident that the plaintiff's

submitted quotation was reviewed, and a decision was made to

place an indent for the supply of 265 sets of wooden dining tables

and wooden dining benches to I.T.D.A. (Indian Tribal Development

Agency).

b. The indent is subject to certain terms and conditions, which are as

follows:

a. The stock should be handed over to the I.T.D.A. with transpor- tation.

b. The quality of the stock should be as per the specified specifica- tions.

c. If any deviation in the quality of the stock, it will be rejected. d. Payment will be made only after satisfaction with the supplied stock.

e. Payment will be made after two months, subject to budget availability, after the material has been supplied. f. Sales tax will be deducted and remitted to the Government. g. The stock should bear the I.S.I. brand.

c. Exs.A.2 to A.19, which are the proceedings of the Project Officer,

I.T.D.A., provide evidence that the plaintiff company offered lower

rates compared to other firms. Subsequently, the plaintiff company

successfully supplied the required materials, and the received

stock was in good condition. The Project Officer sanctioned a pay-

ment by referring the amount in each proceeding to the plaintiff

company for the supplied materials to the Ashram Schools under

I.T.D.A.'s control. The stock was received in good condition by the

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

respective Ashram Schools, and the same was entered in the stock

d. On verification of the receipts issued by Head Masters of the re-

spective schools, the Project Officer/3rd defendant passed the sanc-

tioned orders by issuing Ex.A.2 to A.19 proceedings.

13. The defendants' contention is that the plaintiff supplied materials

of inferior and substandard quality. In response to these allegations, a

Multi Disciplinary Committee (MDC) was formed by the Commissioner of

Tribal Welfare. The MDC inspected the respective schools to verify the

supplied materials and assessed the rates based on the wood quality pro-

vided. The MDC concluded that the appropriate rate for each set of mate-

rials was Rs.4,400/-, significantly lower than the Rs.10,200/- claimed by

the plaintiff enterprises.

14. During the cross-examination of PW.1 (Sri B.Ramanjaneyulu), the

suggestion was made that the amount payable to the plaintiff company

was only Rs.3,30,300/- and the defendants made payment of

Rs.13,55,804/- for the supply of wooden dining tables and wooden dining

benches and the defendants demanded a refund of Rs.9,74,834/- from the

plaintiff company. Notice was issued to the plaintiff company on

09.06.2005, requesting the repayment of the excess amount, but the plain-

tiff did not respond.

15. It is noteworthy that the defendants did not file a counterclaim as

per the requirements of Order 8 Rule 6(a) C.P.C. The counterclaim would

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

have necessitated the disclosure of the date of cause of action, and the de-

fendants would have been required to pay the court fee for the counter-

claim. Since no counterclaim was made, the defendant's demand for the

refund of Rs.9,74,834/- can be considered vague and unsupported.

16. DW.1, E. Ravindra Babu, the Project Officer representing the 3 rd de-

fendant, contended that the plaintiff enterprises managed the then Project

Officer to approve the rates for supplying 265 sets of wooden dining tables

and benches. According to the proceedings of the Commissioner, Indus-

tries Department, Andhra Pradesh (Ex.B5), a Multi-Disciplinary Committee

(MDC) was formed for joint inspection of the materials purchased from

April 2001 to October 2002. During the inspection process, DW.1 visited

the location where the materials were supplied. In his observation, he no-

ticed that the suppliers, including the plaintiff enterprises, were not regis-

tered contractors under A.P.G.S.T. (Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax)

and had fabricated bills to acquire Government funds unlawfully.

17. Additionally, the tender schedule in Ex.B.1 does not require man-

datory registration for participation. As per the trial court's observation,

the invited quotations did not contain any condition that parties/suppliers

should be registered firms. The only condition mentioned was regarding

the stock delivery at the specified places within the given timeframe. The

documents Exs.A.2 to A.19 also include a direction for the Accounts Offic-

er to deduct and remit the A.P.G.S.T. amount to the Government account.

18. During cross-examination, DW.1 confirmed that while making

payments to the supplier, the tax payable to the Government is deducted

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

at the source, implying no tax evasion issue. Therefore, the defendants

cannot now argue that the plaintiff is not a registered contractor, especial-

ly after accepting the quotation and placing an order for supply.

19. According to DW.1's testimony, the MDC assessed the actual

price of the supplied materials by consulting authorized suppliers. The

MDC arrived at Rs.3,30,300/-, including sales tax, for the above-supplied

materials. DW.1 also stated that the MDC visited eight to ten schools

across four districts from March 2005 to May 2005. The visits took place

six years after the plaintiff supplied materials.

20. Based on the minutes of the Review Committee, it is evident that a

Purchase Committee was constituted to procure materials for Ashram

Schools. This committee included the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., as Chair-

man, along with the Divisional Manager, G.C.C Ltd., Asst. Project Officer

(E.D.N.), I.T.D.A and Asst. Project Officer (G), I.T.D.A., and Srisailam are

its members. DW.1 confirmed that before obtaining sanction and approval

from the Government for material purchase, the Purchase Committee was

involved in entering into contracts with suppliers. It is undisputed that the

Purchase Committee participated in receiving quotations and finalizing

rates for the material supply. Only after this process was completed did

the then Project Officer place supply orders with the plaintiff enterprises.

Moreover, the same type of Dining tables and benches were ordered for

supply from the Plaintiff Company, Sainatha Enterprises, and Sreelakshmi

Enterprises at the same rates.

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

21. During cross-examination, DW.1 admitted that the sanction order,

Ex.A.1, did not specify the type of wood to make the Dining tables and

benches. The materials were received by 06.09.2002, but DW.1 stated that

the schools did not use them due to a payment dispute between the plain-

tiff and the 3rd defendant. However, the defendants did not present any

evidence from the Headmasters or Correspondents of the respective

schools to support this claim. DW.1 did not provide evidence to show that

the materials were of poor or substandard quality, and it is not the defen-

dants' case that the Headmasters and Correspondents complained about

the quality of the materials.

22. The defendants have not provided the names of the Carpenters

who supposedly assessed the furniture value. Additionally, no statements

from the Carpenters were recorded, and no quotations were obtained from

Furniture shop owners to assess the value of the supplied materials. The

MDC team maintained inspection notes, but DW.1 admitted that they had

not filed the inspection notes in Court.

23. From DW.1's evidence, it becomes evident that no statements were

recorded from the Carpenters or any individuals with expertise in assess-

ing wood quality to support the MDC's contention. Had these statements

been recorded, the plaintiff would have had an opportunity to cross-

examine them to establish their case. It is surprising that the defendants

also failed to provide the names of the Furniture shop owners consulted to

assess the prevailing market rate of a particular type of wood.

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

24. DW.2, B. Naveen Kumar, who served as Deputy Director of Indus-

tries, testified that he participated in the MDC's enquiry conducted to in-

spect purchases made by I.T.D.A., Srisailam, from April 2001 to October

2002. The purpose of the inspection was to investigate certain irregulari-

ties committed by the then officials of I.T.D.A. DW.2 was appointed as a

member of the MDC by the General Manager of District Industries, ap-

pointed by the Commission of Industries. In the cross-examination, DW.2

revealed that the inspection occurred one year and four months after the

MDC's formation. The plaintiff was not issued any notice or informed

about the inspection, and the inspection did not take place in the presence

of the plaintiff. During the inspection, some of the supplied material was

being used by the schools, while some were not in use. However, DW.2

admitted that his report, Ex.B.9, did not mention that some of the wooden

material was not under use and did not provide a specific reason for this

omission.

25. Furthermore, DW.2 acknowledged that neither he nor any mem-

bers of the MDC possessed expert knowledge about assessing the quality

of wood materials. He did not record statements from carpenters or suppli-

ers to assess the material value. When asked, he could not provide the

names of the carpenters or suppliers who were consulted to determine the

value of the wood material. The inspection notes prepared by DW.2 were

not filed in Court. DW.2 was uncertain whether the wooden furniture car-

ried the 'I.S.I.' brand, which raised questions about the quality and stan-

dard of the supplied materials. Moreover, DW.2 admitted that suppliers

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

tend to quote lower rates for bulk orders and higher rates for smaller

quantities, indicating the influence of quantity on pricing. The failure to

seek assistance from experts to assess the wood quality when they lacked

such expertise is also notable.

26. DW.2's testimony reveals that he did not examine the then Project

Officer and the members of the Purchasing Committee during his inspec-

tion. This lack of examination raises concerns about the fairness and tho-

roughness of the inspection process. The evidence presented by DW.2 in-

dicates that no opportunity was provided to the plaintiff and the members

of the Purchasing Committee to explain their stand or defend against the

serious allegations made against them. The defendants accused the Project

Director, I.T.D.A., and the members of the Purchasing Committee of col-

luding with the plaintiff and other firms. However, no substantial evidence

or material was produced to establish such collusion. Mere allegations

without cogent and convincing evidence are insufficient to prove such se-

rious accusations. Notably, there is no document or proof on the record to

indicate that any disciplinary action was initiated against the alleged er-

ring officials. DW.1 testified that the then Project Officer and Superinten-

dent were suspended from services, and others were called for an explana-

tion. However, no supporting documentary evidence was filed to support

this claim. Moreover, DW.2 admitted that he does not know whether any

departmental action was initiated against the members of the Purchasing

Committee. The evidence on record supports the contention made by the

plaintiff's counsel that the I.T.D.A. Project Director and Superintendent re-

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

ceived promotions, whereas the other members are working in their re-

spective departments. The absence of any documentation or evidence re-

garding the initiation of departmental proceedings against the I.T.D.A.

Project Director and other members of the Purchasing Committee raises

doubts about the credibility of the defendant's claims. Overall, the lack of

proper examination of key individuals and the absence of supporting evi-

dence for serious allegations cast doubts on the fairness and validity of the

defendant's contentions against the plaintiff and the Purchasing Commit-

tee members.

27. According to the evidence placed, there is no implied warranty or

condition regarding the quality or fitness of the materials supplied by the

plaintiff. The defendants took the materials without any protest, and DW.2

admitted that he had no knowledge of whether the wooden furniture car-

ried the I.S.I. brand or not. The defendants did not claim that the mate-

rials supplied by the plaintiff did not meet the required measurements.

However, the defendants failed to provide any material before the Court on

which the MDC assessed the value of the supplied materials. They did not

examine witnesses to establish that the dining tables were made with infe-

rior and substandard quality material. Despite the availability of the mate-

rials in the Ashram Schools, the defendants did not return them, even

though there was a direction in Exhibit B.13 letter from the Commissioner

of Tribal Welfare to do so. DW.1 did not issue any written intimation to the

plaintiff asking for the return of the goods, nor did he explain the reason

for not providing written notice. The defendants also did not take any steps

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

to file an appropriate application before the Court to examine the material

through experts with expertise in assessing its quality. Although the mate-

rials were received by the department between 06.09.2002 to 30.09.2002,

and despite the plaintiff's statutory notice (Ex.A.20) under Section 80 of

the C.P.C., dated 14.03.2005, the defendants did not pay the amount for

the supplied materials. The evidence of DWs.1 and 2 shows that they

lacked knowledge in assessing the quality of wooden furniture and its val-

ue, and none of the members of the MDC possessed expert knowledge in

this regard. The MDC concluded that the plaintiff supplied substandard

material without making any independent enquiry with experts in furni-

ture shops or seeking the assistance of individuals with expertise in the

field. Furthermore, it is observed from Exs.A.2 to A.19 orders that the

stock was received in good condition. Therefore, it is unclear how the de-

fendants are entitled to reduce the contract rate offered, especially after

accepting the goods without any protest and continuing to use them. The

Court views that the defendants are not entitled to raise a dispute about

the quality of the material three years after using the goods, mainly when

the plaintiff demanded payment according to the agreed-upon terms. The

defendants' clear admission shows non-payment of the amount for 165

sets of wooden tables at the agreed contract rate. Given the defendants'

failure to establish that the plaintiff supplied substandard material, the

plaintiff is entitled to the value of the costs of 165 sets of wooden dining

tables and benches, amounting to Rs.16,83,000/-. This point is therefore

answered in favour of the plaintiff.

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

POINT NO.II:

28. According to Ex.A.1 proceedings, the payment to the plaintiff was

supposed to be made within two months after the supply of the material,

subject to budget availability. The record indicates that the plaintiff sup-

plied the material between 06.09.2002 and 30.09.2002. However, the de-

fendants have not claimed that the budget allocations were not made with-

in two months after the plaintiff's supply. Furthermore, they have not as-

serted that the payment could not be made due to a lack of budget alloca-

tion. Instead, the defendants' defence is based on the allegation of the

plaintiff supplying substandard material, deemed unacceptable by the

Court. The Court rejected the defendant's plea regarding the substandard

material, and therefore, it is established that the defendants were liable to

pay the amount by the end of November 2002. However, they failed to

make the payment, despite their defence being unsupported.

29. Regarding the issue of interest, the trial court did not allow inter-

est on the grounds that there was no agreement between the parties to pay

interest.

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of the Indian Council for

Enviro-legal Action V. Union of India and others1 discussed different case

laws. A few of the paragraphs, i.e., para Nos.152, 153, 154, 155 & 156, are

reproduced herein below:

152. Unjust enrichment has been defined by the Court as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention

1 (2011) 8 SCC 161

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which, in justice and equity, belong to another.

153. Unjust enrichment is "the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience." A defendant may be liable "even when the defendant retaining the benefit is not a wrongdoer" and "even though he may have received [it] honestly in the first instance."

154. Unjust enrichment occurs when the defendant wrongfully secures a benefit or passively receives a benefit which would be unconscionable to retain. In the leading case of Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. [1942] 2 All ER 122, Lord Wright stated the principle thus :

"....(A)ny civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man from retaining the money of, or some benefit derived from another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognized to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution."

155. Lord Denning also stated in Nelson v. Larholt, [1947] 2 All ER 751 as under:-

"......It is no longer appropriate, however, to draw a distinction between law and equity. Principles have now to be stated in the light of their combined effect. Nor is it necessary to canvass the niceties of the old forms of action. Remedies now depend on the substance of the right, not on whether they can be fitted into a particular frame- work. The right here is not peculiar to equity or contract or tort, but falls naturally within the important category of cases where the court orders restitution, if the justice of the case so requires."

156. The above principle has been accepted in India. This Court, in several cases, has applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

31. In Ganuga Ranganath Vs. Hotel Garudadri (Private) Limited2, the

composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that:

56. The question as to whether the interest can be awarded in the absence of any stipulation contained in the contract came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (V.R.S.J.) was a party, reported in Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited v. Anupam Saraogi of Indian Inhabitant, 2017 (3) ALT 602. After a detailed consideration of the origin and evolution of the Interest Act of 1978, this Court held in paragraph 80 of its Judgment that both in England and in India, Courts have treated interest as a payment which becomes due as compensation for the deprivation. This Court also took note of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, (2002) 1 SCC 367 and held that the Court is entitled to award interest on such a rate as the Court considers reasonable unless the Court is satisfied that there are special reasons why interest should not be allowed.

57. We are of the considered view that the defendant should be directed to pay interest at 9% p.a.

32. In Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samithi, Prathipadu,

Guntur District and another V. M.Sambaiah3, the Composite High Court of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad observed that:

8.(a). .........Courts have held that the interest can also be awarded by a court on equity. In order to invoke the doctrine of equity, it is necessary for the first instance to establish the existence of circumstances which attract equitable jurisdiction, such as non-performance of control of which equity requires specific performance or whether the owner is deprived of his property without paying the price thereof, or where money has been improperly detained and not paid to the person who is entitled to it or, where an employer withholds terminal benefits of an employee even after retirement without any valid reason etc.

33. In Aditya Mass Communications (P) Ltd., V. A.P.S.R.T.C.4, the

Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:

8..........If a court comes to the conclusion on a given set of facts, a party has been wrongly denied the use of its own money, it is the duty of the

2 2018 3 A.L.D. 40 3 2003 (4) ALD 396 (DB) 4 (2003) 11 S.C.C. 17

AS No.74 OF 2009 IN/AND IA No.4 OF 2009 (XOBJ 12414 OF 2009)

Court to see that the said party is appropriately compensated. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the respondent has deprived the appellant of its rightful use of the money........

34. In accordance with the settled legal position and considering the

money held by the appellants/defendants, this Court deems it appropriate

to grant an interest rate of 9% per annum from 06th December 2002 until

the date of filing of the suit while allowing the cross objections in part. As

for the pendent lite and post-lite interest, it is at the judicial discretion of

the Court. The Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction. No sufficient grounds

were made out to alter the interest rate. However, the plaintiff's request for

interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit until the

date of realization is not granted.

35. In conclusion, the Appeal is dismissed without costs, and the

cross objection is partially allowed. Consequently, the respondent/plaintiff

is entitled to claim interest at 9% on Rs. 16,83,000/- from 06th December