Order ;

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Delhi High court. The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here. The dispute in this case is about interest. The submission of Mr. Gaurab Banerji, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Appellant is that interest can only be awarded from the date of the award and not before the date of award, in view of Clause 3.3(ix) of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) which states as follows:

No interest shall be payable by the Employer on Earnest Money, Security Deposit or on any money due to the Contractor by the Employer.

3. In support of his proposition, Mr. Banerji has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 (9) SCALE 261.

4. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that Clause 3.3(ix) has to be read ejusdem generis and hence a literal interpretation cannot be given to the words "or on any money due to the contractor by the employer". We do not agree with the same. It is settled law that the principle of ejusdem generis does not apply in every situation. In Justice G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th Edition, it has been stated at pages 480-486:

It is essential for application of the ejusdem generis rule that the enumerated things before the general words must constitute a category or a genus or a family which admits of a number of species or members. "It is requisite" said Chandrashekhar Aiyar, J. "that there must be a distinct genus, which must comprise more than one species;" and "it is clearly laid down by decided cases", said Subbarao, J. "that the specific words must form a distinct genus or category". If the specified things preceding general words belong to different categories, this principle of construction will not apply. Further, mention of a single species does not constitute a genus. Thus, in the phrase 'a salary or income' as it finds place in Section 60(2) of the Presidency Insolvency Act, 1909 the word 'income' has not been construed ejusdem generis for the preceding word 'salary' signifies only one species and does not constitute a genus. Similarly, the expression 'discharge or dismissal' in item 1 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra (Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice) Act, has not been construed by the rule of ejusdem generis to limit the word 'discharge' to discharge as a matter of penalty on the reasoning that the wider word 'discharge' does not follow the more limited word 'dismissal' and neither of them is a genus nor species of the same very genus.

In construing the definition of 'workmen' in the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, which reads: 'means any person who entered into or works under a contract with an employer whether the contract be by way of manual labour, clerical work or otherwise'-: VISCOUNT SIMON, L.C. said: "the use of words 'or otherwise' does not bring into play the ejusdem generis principle for 'manual labour' and 'clerical work' do not belong to a single limited genus.

And, said LORD SIMONDS in another case: "Indeed if a collection of items is heterogeneous, it almost seems a conflict in words to say that they belong to the same genus".

In interpreting Section 20 of the United Town Electrical Company Act, which reads: 'the company shall be liable for water rates on all lands and buildings owned by it in the aforesaid town, but otherwise the company shall be exempt from taxation'; the Privy Council rejected the contention that the word 'taxation' should be construed ejusdem generis with 'water rate'; LORD THANKERTON said: 'There is no room for the application of the principle of ejusdem generis in the absence of any mention of a genus, since the mention of a single species for example of water rates does not constitute a genus".

In construin