Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others – Appellants
Versus
M/S Malpani Industries – Respondent
RFA No. 40 of 2013
Decided On : 27.11.2015
For the Appellant:Mr. A. Sahad and Mr. J.B. Saikia, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Senior Advocate and Mr. T.N. Srinivasan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Railways Act, 1989 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order XXX Rule 1 - Recovery of decrial amount - Interest calculated at rate of 2% per annum above lending rate of Bank - Appeal has been preferred against judgment decreeing suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for an amount said mill used to be operated for converting logs of timber into veneer and sawn timber belonging to plaintiff and others - It is case of plaintiff that An long Autonomous Council (KAAC) issued transit passes from time to time for a period of three months on basis of which plaintiff’s mill used to operate – Whereby plaintiffs aforementioned mill was found to be in order since no illegality and/or irregularity in operation of mill could be detected by Forest authorities - Although operation of plaintiff’s mill was found to be in order yet KAAC authorities did not revoke earlier order by which operation of the mill was suspended - Held, It is not in dispute that as per IRDA Regulations insured will be entitled to claim interest on claimed amount if settlement is delayed beyond days from date of submission of surveyors report - It is also not in dispute IRDA Regulations permit a claim of interest payment by insurance claimant at rate decreed by trial court – In Memorandum of appeal although defendants/appellants have taken ground no XIII questioning decision of trial court as regards issue no XII yet during hearing of appeal no argument has been advanced by counsel for appellants on said point - A reading of ground taken in memo of appeal also does not indicate with any degree of clarity or precision as to on what basis decision of trial court rendered in issue no XII is being assailed - Appeal allowed
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.03.2013 and decree dated 15.03.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Golaghat in Money Suit No. 9 of 2003, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 2,26,75,388/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Six Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Eight) only together with future interest calculated at the rate of 2% per annum above the lending rate of the Bank as per the IRDA Regulation to be reckoned on the basis of prevailing rate on 07.03.2013 to be recovered from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 13.03.2003 till recovery of the decreetal amount.
2. The plaintiff’s case, in brief, as projected in the plaint, is that the plaintiff is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 having its registered head office at Bengenakhowa, Golaghat Town in the district of Golaghat, Assam. The plaintiff firm is represented by its Managing Partner viz. Sri Jugal Kishore Malpani.
3. The plaintiff firm owns a veneer and Saw Mill situated at Dihingiagaon, P.O. Silonijan under Bokajan P.S. in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam. The said mill used to be operated for converting logs of timber into veneer and sawn timber belonging to the plaintiff and others. It is the case of plaintiff that the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC) issued transit passes from time to time for a period of three months on the basis of which the plaintiff’s mill used to operate. However, by issuing an order bearing No. KAC/F-231(PT-ii)/93-97/2455/A dated 12.09.1996 the KAAC had suspended the operation of the Mill belonging to the plaintiff pending conclusion of an enquiry. Subsequently, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karbi Anglong(E), submitted an enquiry report dated 03.01.1997 whereby, the plaintiffs aforementioned mill was found to be in order since no illegality and/or irregularity in operation of the mill could be detected by the Forest authorities. Although the operation of the plaintiff’s mill was found to be in order, yet, the KAAC authorities did not revoke the earlier order dated 12.09.1996 by which the operation of the mill was suspended.
4. By a resolution dated 30.10.1996 the KAAC had decided that the transit passes for royalty paid timbers shall be issued for a period of three months at a time subject to the condition that no round logs would be permitted to be transported outside the district and that all timbers to be permitted only to the local mills. Accordingly, felled timbers that were royalty paid were allowed to be transported for a period of three months. In view of the above decision of the KAAC a large number of timbers converted into sawn timber as well as the logs of timber brought by different persons got accumulated in the plaintiff’s mill premises but the same could not be processed due to continuance of the ban order upon the mill. Many of those logs had been purchased on credit subject to the condition that payment would be made only after the mill was allowed to be run by the competent authority.
5. Since the KAAC did not permit the operation of the plaintiff’s mill despite the enquiry report dated 03.01.1997 submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Karbi Anglong, the plaintiff firm was compelled to approach this Court by filing a writ petition, whereafter, the suspension order was withdrawn by the authorities vide communication dated 09.07.1998 on condition that the plaintiff would withdraw the writ petition filed before this High Court against the suspension order dated 12.09.1996. On receipt of the communication dated 09.07.1998 the plaintiff had withdrawn the writ petition on 09.08.1998 with liberty to file afresh, if required.
6. In the meantime, by the order dated 12.12.1996 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had imposed a ban on the movement of felled trees and timbers from any of the seven North Eastern States or transportation to any other State of the country either by rail or road
