097-NLR-NLR-V-57-T.-S.-JINASENA-Appellant-and-THE-MINNERIYA-AGRICULTURAL-PRODUSE-CO-OPERATIVE-M.pdf
1955Present : Basnayake, A.C.J., and PuIIe, J.
T.S. JINASENA, Appellant, and THE MINNERIYA AGRICUL-TU1UL PRODUCE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY,LTD., Respondent.
S.C. 314—D. G. Colombo, 22,914
Interest—Mutual agreement necessary.
Plaintiff sued defendant for tlie recovery of n certain sum for services renderedto the defendant. He also claimed interest at J2 per cent, per annum on thestrength of the following legend on his invoices : “ Interest at 12 per cent, willbe charged on all overdue accounts ”.
Held, that interest was not recoverable in the absence of an agreement in thatbehalf. The intimation on the bill heads did not constitute an agreement to payinterest.,
ApPKAL from n judgment of the District Court, Colombo.
II. IT Jai/etcardcnc, Q.C., with L>jn Wirasehera and P. Banasinrjhe,for Plaintiff-Appellant.
A'. E. Weerasooria, Q.C., with IS. If. Aluiciltare and B. S. C. Hatv.atle,for Defendant-Respondent..
November 7, 1955. Rasxavaick, A.C.J.—
The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) suedtire defendant-respondent, the Minncriya Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the res-pondent), for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,SSS/2.» with interest thereon.
at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from 1st October, 1949, claimed byhim for services rendered to the respondent in his capacity as an engineer.The respondent claimed a sum of Its. 36,112 in reconvention andcontinuing damages at the rate of Rs. 50 a day from 1st July, 1950, butdid not deny the claim of the appellant for the sum of Rs. 4.SSS/25.
After trial the learned District Judge found that the respondent hadsuffered damages in three sums of Rs. 3,000, Rs. 316 and Rs. 6,000 res-pectively and awarded the respondent a sum of Rs. 9:316, less a sum ofRs. 484/50 awarded to the appellant on his claim.
The learned Judge held that he had no territorial jurisdiction to go intothe appellant’s claim in respect of his quotations numbered 4014 and 41 ISdated 23rd July, 1948, (F4A) and 1st March, 1949, (P5G) respetively andfor that reason did not allow the claims in respect of those two quotations.
The learned Judge’s conclusion that he had no territorial jurisdictionto go into those claims was founded entirely on the view that the con-tracts in respect of those quotations were made at Hinkurakgoda.
The originals of these documents which appear to have been used at thetrial do not seem to have been filed of record and were not available tothe learned Judge at the- time he wrote the judgment. The absence ofthe conditions of the contract on the copies P4A & PoG which the learned•Judge had before him forced him to this erroneous finding. The originalsof both documents have since been produced before us and they containthe conditions of the contract printed on the reverse.
It is clear from the. conditions that the contracts were concluded inColombo and that the learned Judge had territorial jurisdiction to adjudi-cate on them. We therefore set aside the trial Judge’s order disallowingthe appellant’s claim in respect of those quotations on the ground of lackof jurisdiction and allow him credit for the full amount of his claim ofRs. 4,888/25 which is admitted by the respondent. The appellant hasalso claimed interest at 12 per cent, per annum. This claim is based onthe strength of the legend “ Interest at 12 per cent, will be charged on alloverdue accounts” on his invoices. Under our law interest is notrecoverable in the absence of an express agreement in that behalf *. In-timation on the bill heads does not constitute an agreement to pay interest.We therefore disallow the claim for interest prior to the date of action.After the date of action the payment of interest, is regulated by the CivilProcedure Code. The appellant is declared entitled to interest at 5per cent, on the sum of Rs. 4,S88/25 from date of action till the date ofdecree and further interest- at the same rate on the aggregate sum ad-judged from the date of decree to the date of payment.
In the result the respondent will get judgment in a sum of Rs. 9,316less the sum of Rs 4,SSS/25 plus legal interest payable thereon in termscf this judgment. The order for half costs in favour of the defendant isset aside. There will be no costs of appeal.
Pi'LLE, J.—I agree.
Judgmenl varied. ■
1 Arepptn Ahamat v. T. D. Martines—XVendl's Reports 341.
Anna maty Chcttg v. Thornhill—3 C. L. XV. 56. 36 -V. L. R. 353.