IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff must prove the loss sustained and the entitlement to interest in order for the claim to be sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Commercial Court Raipur, wherein the civil suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant bearing C.S. No.05-B/2019 claiming accrued interest on Rs.2,06,30,196/- which the plaintiff claimed to be deprived, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff was engaged in supply of country liquor in District Janjgir under a contract with the State. According to the plaintiff, the State clamped the charge that the appellant has violated the provisions of sub-rule 4(a) of Rule 4 of C.G. Country Spirit Rules 1995 by not maintaining minimum stock of bottled liquor at each “mnufacturing warehouse” and the show cause notice was issued. Thereafter, the Excise Department through its officer instituted 5 cases in Court of Collector Excise Janjgir Champa. The Collector Excise imposed a penalty of Rs.2/- per litre on the plaintiff in all cases under Rule 12(2) of the the C.G. Country Spirit Rules 1995 (For short “Rules 1995”) thereby a total sum of Rs.1,59,30,050/- towards fine was imposed in all 5 cases. The amount of fine was deducted by the State Excise Department from the amount of running bills payable to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff challenged the said penalty order before the Commissioner, Excise, by filing the appeal which was dismissed u/s 62(2)(c) of The Excise Act, 1915. Thereafter, the plaintiff challenged the said order before the Revenue Board, Bilaspur. The Revenue Board held that the penalty imposed on the plaintiff was not in accordance with law as it has not caused any damage to the State. Thereafter, the order of Revenue Board was challenged before the High Court in a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed whereby the imposition of penalty which was held illegal was affirmed.

3. According to the plaintiff, the defendants refunded the amount recovered from plaintiff towards penalty of Rs.1,59,30,050/- on 27.7.2018, but did not pay the interest thereon. According to the plaintiff, during the period from 2012 to 2018, he was compelled to pay interest of Rs.2,06,30,196/- on the aforesaid amount which he borrowed from the Bank. Since the imposition of penalty of Rs.1,59,30,050/- was held to be illegal, the plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to get interest amount of Rs.2,06,30,196/- from the defendants.

4. The defendants/State pleaded that though the penalty was held to be illegal but the action of the State cannot be said to be malafide. It is further pleaded that since the plaintiff did not claim any interest during the course of proceeding before the Revenue Board, separate suit would not be tenable only for interest. The Defendants/State further pleaded that since the plaintiff has not produced any bank account statement, pass-book to establish the fact that they have maintained any account of borrowing and paid interest thereof, as such, the interest cannot be awarded.

5. The learned Commercial Court framed as many as 5 issues and held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was predominantly for compensation arising out of malicious prosecution initiated against him and as per Article 74 of The Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is one year for compensation for a malicious prosecution. It was held that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. The Commercial Court further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove their case before the Court, as such, the plaintiff was non-suited. Being aggrieved by such order, the instant appeal.

6) (i) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff suffered a huge loss on account of wrongful recovery of illegitimate dues which was returned to him after 6 ½ years. Since the interest was paid on the imposed penalty of Rs.1,59,30,050/- which was borrowed from the Bank, the suit was maintainable as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act as no prescribed period of limitation is provided i