RSA No. 776 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2174-C of 2010 and RSA No. 776 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 19, 2010 Food Corporation of India and others ...... Appellants Versus M/s Ramesh Rice Mills ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 2174-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed and the deficiency of Court fee in filing the present appeal is made good. RSA No. 776 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the recovery suit of the respondent for refund of earnest money. The appellants admitted the deposit and the liability to refund but stated that since the plaintiff-respondent caused huge loss, it was entitled to retain the amount of money. Both the courts have found that the respondent had submitted the 'No Dues Certificate' both from the appellant- Food Corporation of India as well as from the Manager, Punjab State RSA No. 776 of 2010(O&M) 2 Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh as per which no paddy was left or pending with the respondent-firm. Further, both the Courts noticed that the appellants had raised a plea that the respondent had caused loss of Rs.1, 34, 79, 062/- but had not taken any steps to recover the said amount and had not even pleaded the set off or counter claim. Consequently the suit, as mentioned above, was decreed. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the suit filed by respondent-appellant firm which is not registered is competent to file the present suit? b) Whether the principle of set off is applicable against the plaintiff-respondent which has caused loss amounting to Rs. 1, 34, 79, 062/-? c ) Whether interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the recoverable amount is legally sustainable particularly in the period of liberalization of economy? In my opinion, apart from the fact that no plea of set off was taken in the written statement, the appellants have not been able to reconcile their claim with the 'No Dues Certificate' issued by their officers. In any case the appellants would be at liberty to make recovery against the respondent as may be permitted by law. As regards question No. (c) there is no reason to hold that the interest of 12% is in any way excessive. Consequently holding all the questions against the appellants, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 19, 2010 sunita