Calcutta High Court
B. P. Poddar Hospital And Medical ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 February, 2025
Author: Sugato Majumdar
Bench: Sugato Majumdar
OCD - 9
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
IA NO. GA/4/2023
[OLD NO CS/35/2020]
In CS-COM/182/2024
B. P. PODDAR HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH LIMITED
Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Date: 7th February, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Ranjan Deb, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Meghajil Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Srijeeta Gupta, Adv.
....for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv.
...for the Defendant.
The Court: GA 4 of 2023 is filed by the Plaintiff praying for passing decree for
interest.
The instant suit has been filed praying, inter alia, for money decree, decree for
interest and others.
The petitioner also filed an application in the suit, GA 3 of 2021 under the
provisions of Chapter XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for summary
2
judgment for a sum of Rs.5,47,70,672.40/- in favour of the Plaintiff with interest at a
rate of 18 % per annum from July 2016 till January 2020.
A Co-ordinate Bench in terms of Judgment dated 06/02/2023 allowed the said
application and passed summary judgment in this regard with observation that as
regard the interest part the same is relegated to the suit.
It is admitted that the Respondent made over a sum of Rs.2,01,31,635/- +GST
towards satisfaction of the decretal amount. Now the Petitioner has filed instant
application praying for decree of interest at a rate of 18% per annum amounting to
Rs.24,459,937/- from 01/07/2016 till 30/03/2023, the later one being the date when
the decretal amount was paid by the Respondent to the Plaintiff. It is also
contended that no evidence is required to be adduced on behalf of the parties for
passing decree for interest. The Plaintiff has also issued a notice under Section 3 of
the Interest Act, 1970.
Affidavit-in-opposition is filed by the Defendants.
The contention of the Defendant is that demand of the landlord/Plaintiff
payment of interest is not tenable because the question of payment of interest shall
arise only when the rent is due and payable and there is a delay of payment of arrear
rent. In the present case, quantum of arrear rent could not be finalized owing to
repeated non-cooperation from the landlord/Plaintiff. The process of rent revision is
elaborately laid down in the manual of infrastructure CBDT, Government of India
and the rent is finalized only when it is negotiated upon. It is further pleaded that
unless and until the owner of the tenanted premises furnish relevant documents
required for the revision, rent revision and/or negotiation is not possible and in the
present case, the Plaintiff neglected and failed to furnish the required documents in
spite of repeated request as a result of which revision of rent in respect of the
premises could not be done. Rent is revised periodically on the basis of existing
instructions and guidelines of the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban
Development. The Superintending Engineer, Kolkata, Central Circle-II, CPWD and
Chairman, Hiring Committee, Nizam Palace, Kolkata-700020 was the Competent
Authority to assess rent and issue rent reasonableness certificate. It is further stated
that interest payment cannot be linked to the date of acceptance of reasonable rent
certificate for the same provides a range of value rather than being absolute in nature
and the rate of rent has to be negotiated upon by and between the landlord and the
Income Tax Department keeping in mind different provisions as laid down in the
Manual of Infrastructure. Rent negotiation could not materialize even after direction
of this Court owing to the non-submission of documents on the part of the
landlord/Plaintiff. Accordingly it is pleaded that the application is misconceived and
should be dismissed.
Affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Plaintiff refuting the contentions. It is
contended that quantum of interest can be decided in the instant application itself
without going into trial. The document exchanged between the parties are on record.
As such, interest can be calculated during herein of the instant application. It is also
contended that since the Defendants come within the meaning of 'State', as defined
in the Article 12 of the Constitution of India, ought to be a model litigant and this
matter should not be procrastinated. It is reiterated that decree for interest can be
passed in terms of the petition itself.
I have heard rival submissions.
Contentions of the parties are important. Pleadings show certain issues are
there which cannot be decided at this stage without appropriate fact finding exercise.
That is why a Co-ordinate Bench relegated the interest part to the suit. The issue of
liability to pay interest is, in fact, a mixed question of fact and law, as pleaded.
Without aid of evidence, this issue cannot be decided.
Therefore, decree as interest cannot be passed without trial.
Accordingly the instant application is dismissed.
Fix 26th March, 2025 for further order.
(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)
