STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 05-02-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

6 
A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
B 
c 
v. 
RAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS. 
February 5, 1979 
(R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Interest Act 1839 (32 of 1839)-Suit for recovery of aniount due in res-
pect of building contract-Claim if a "sum certain" under the Act, 
Notice oj demand for payment clain1ing "los.r by way of intcrest"-If, valid 
and suffecient-Notice not to be strictly construed. 
The Interest Ac~ 1839 (32 of 1839) empowers the Court to allow interest 
to the plaintiff if the amount claimed is a sum certain which is payable at a 
certaifl time by virtue of a written instrument at lei rate not 
exceeding 
the 
current rate of interest from the time when such amounts were payable and 
if the amount ~ payable otherwise, then from the time when the demand of 
payment !hall have been made in writing. 
D 
As the amounts due in respect of a building work! contract renl6ined un-
E 
F 
G 
H 
paid despite demands and notices, the re,pondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for 
its recovery together with interest. 
Decreeing the suit, the trial court award-
ed interest at 4t per cent. But in appeal, the High Court enhanced the rate 
of interest pendente Ute from 4t per cent to 6 per cent. 
In the further appeal to this Court it vAl• contended that the Interest Act 
1839, was not applicable as no sum certain was payable and there was no 
demand for payment of interest. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. The claim was for la "sum certainl! within the meaning of the 
Act. [9F] 
The claim was ascertainable on a calculation made in terms of the agree-
ment and was therefore a sum certain within the meaning of the Act. It is 
"a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in the future 
by reason of a present obligation" and in any case it was not for the pay-
ment of any unliquidated damages or for the payn1ent of any amount arising 
out of an inchoate obligation. 
[9E-F] 
2. The respondent issued hvo notices. In the second notice 
it 
dc;finite 
claim of interest had been made by them. The term "loss 
by 
way 
of 
interest" mentioned in the first notice suggested that what was being claimed 
was compensation for the damages suffered by them. The notice should not 
be construed literally or technically. The mention of loss was only explann~ 
tory. Without any manner of doubt the respondents were claiming interest as 
such. [9G-10DJ 
3. Nor again ctln it be said that there was no claim for future interest. 
A claim for past interest would necessarily imply a claim for future interest. 
[!OE] 
. 
, 
' t 
I 
RAJASTHAN v. RAGHUVEER SINGH ( Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 
7 
.r 
Kuppusanii Pillai v. Madras Electric Tramway Co. Ltd., ILR 23 Mad. 41; 
A 
Sita Ram & Ors. v. Mrs. S. Sullivan, [1901] 2 Punjab Law Reporter 464; re-
ferred to. 
Mahabir Prashad Rungta v. Durga Datt, [1961] 3 SCR 639 and 
Union 
of India v. A.. L. Rallia Ram, [1964] 3 SCR 164; distinguished. 
4. Having regard to the various continuous default'5 committed 
by 
the 
B 
appe1lant and its officers the High Court 
v.~i justified in enhancing the 
rate 
• 
of interest to 6 per cent. 
[1 lE] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 2008 
of 
1969. 
,-4;-
From the Judgment and Order dated 7-4-1965 of the Rajasthan 
r 
High Court in D. B. Civil Regular Appeal No. 67153. 
' . 
S. M. Jain for the Appellant. 
B. D. Sharma, Ramesh Chandra and B. P. Maheshwari for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgme_nt of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-The Staie of Rajasthan, defendant in 
Civil Suit No. 9 of 1963 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, 
Udaipur, is the appellant in this appeal filed pursuant to a certificate 
granted under Article 133(1) (a) of the Constitntion of India (as 
it itood prior to the 30th amendment). The plaintiff respondent took 
a building work on contract from the erstwhile Government of the 
State of Udaipur. 
He completed the work on 6th 
June, 
1950. 
Despite demands and notices issued by the plaintiff a considerable 
amount due to him remained unpaid. He, therefore, filed the suit out 
of which the appeal arises to recover a sum of Rs. 3,19,458111/-
together with interest at the rate of 12 % . 
The suit was contested 
by the 
State of Rajasthan. 
An 
interim decree for a sum of 
Rs. 66,517/- was passed on 7th November, 1955. 
After full trial a 
decree for Rs. 1,67,6191- (including the sum of Rs. 66,517 /-
for 
which a preliminary decree had already been passed) was passed ou 
11-6-1958/30-6-1958. The decree also awarded interest at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.