The Commissioner of Tamil NaduRaffles v. Dr.Narayanan Poti

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:02.01.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAMANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARWRIT APPEAL Nos.537 and 2008 of 2002The Commissioner of Tamil NaduRaffles, 621, Anna Salai,Chennai-6... Appellant in W.A.537/2002 & Respondent in W.A.2008/2002.vs.Dr.Narayanan Poti..Respondent in W.A.537/2002 & Appellant in W.A.2008/2002Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patentagainst the order of the learned Judge Mr.P.Shanmugam dated 12.11.2001made in W.P.No.17476 of 2001 filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondentto pay the prize amount of Rs.27,50,000/- due to the petitioenr hereintogether with interest at 18% p.a from 27.05.88 the date of deposit of theprize winning lottery ticket, till date of payment.For appellant/ : Mr. K.Elango, Spl.G.P., respondent in WA.537/02 &WA.2008/02For respondent/ : Mr. A.Sivaji petitioner in WA.537/02 &WA.2008/02COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgement of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 12.11.2001made in W.P.No.17476 of 2001, the Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Raffles,Chennai 6, has filed Writ Appeal No.537 of 2002 and the writ petitionerhas filed Writ Appeal No.2008 of 2002 for the enhancement of interest rateawarded by the learned single Judge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for theappellant/respondent as well as Mr. A. Sivaji learned counsel forrespondent/writ petitioner.3. Since the issue involved in these appeals is regarding payment ofinterest at 6% per annum from the date of successful winning of thelottery, viz., in May, 1988, we are of the view that it is unnecessary totraverse all the factual details as stated in the affidavit filed beforethe learned single Judge. According to the petitioner, he purchased threelottery tickets from Sri Eswari Lucky Centre on 25.05.1988 and came toknow that one of the lottery tickets purchased by him got the firstprize, i.e., Rs.25 lakhs. Thereafter, he deposited the prize winningticket with the State Bank of Travancore, Pooyapalli Branch on 27.05.1988.The Bank, in turn, obtained necessary claim from the then Director ofTamil Nadu Raffles. The necessary form was also executed by thepetitioner. He also deposited the counterfoil on 13.06.1988 with the saidBank. 4. According to the petitioner, he is the owner and holder of theprize winning ticket and the counterfoil. As per Rule 36(A) of the TamilNadu Raffles Rules, 1976, the holder of the prize winning ticket shall beentitled to claim the prize amount and the same cannot be made withoutproduction of the prize winning ticket as proof under any circumstance.The petitioner satisfied all the conditions and according to him, he isentitled to the prize money. While so, he came to know that oneUlaganathan filed a suit in O.S.No.220 of 1988 before Principal DistrictMunsif's Court, Srivilliputhur seeking declaration that he (the plaintiff-Ulaganathan) is the true and lawful owner in respect of the prize winningticket. The petitioner got himself impleaded in the said suit as thirddefendant. Private complaint was also lodged by the said Ulaganthanbefore the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court against the petitionerand one Muneswaran. Subsequent to the order of this Court in CRP.No.47 of1994, the plaintiff in the said suit filed Pauper O.P.No.7 of 1991 beforethe Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur and subsequently, it was taken on file asO.S.No.278 of 1996. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed on 18.06.1999 andthereafter, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.3647 of 1992 before thisCourt praying for direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to pay theprize amount of Rs.25 lakhs in respect of the lottery ticket and Rs.2.5lakhs for the counterfoil. In that writ petition, the petitioner wasdirected to furnish bank guarantee or of property subject to thediscretion of the concerned authority, viz., Director of Lotteries,Tamilnadu Raffles. 5. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner made arepresentation to the said authority followed by legal notice. Accordingto the petitioner, in spite of his representations, the authorityconcerned neither deposited nor paid the amount, which necessitated him tofile WP.No.17476 of 2001 for appropriate direction to the respondent for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ payment of the amount with interest at 18% per annum from 27.05.1988. Thelearned Judge, who heard the writ petition, after finding that there wasno interim order in the suits against the payment of the amount to thewrit petitioner and in any event, the Director of Raffles could havedeposited the amount in a Government, Corporation or Nationalised Bank,and in such case, the petitioner could have got the benefit of interestaccrued, issued direction for payment of the prize amount with interest atthe rate of 6% per annum from the date of successful winning of thelottery i.e., May,1988. In the same order, the learned Judge furtherdirected that the amount with interest should be paid within a period of45 days, failing which the amount would carry 12% interest thereafter tillthe date of payment. Questioning the direction relating to interest, theCommissioner of Raffles, filed Writ Appeal No.537 of 2002 and for theenhancement of rate of interest, the writ petitioner filed Writ AppealNo.2008 of 2002.6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for theappellant/respondent by drawing our attention to various dates and eventscommencing from 25.05.1988 ending with payment of prize money i.e., on26.09.2003, submitted that there was no delay on the part of theGovernment or the concerned authority, but due to dispute with regard toentitlement of the prize money as well as non-compliance of the directionsof this Court on the part of the writ petitioner, the matter got delayedand hence, the learned Judge is not justified in awarding interest. Herelied on a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court reported inMirza Javed Murtaza vs. U.P. Financial Corporation [AIR 1983 Allahabad234]. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for therespondent/writ petitioner submitted that even after disposal of thesuits, the money was not either deposited or paid to the petitioner andbecause of the delay on the part of the authority, the learned Judge isjustified in awarding interest, and prayed for the enhancement of rate ofinterest.8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of learnedcounsel for the parties.9. Admittedly, there was a dispute with regard to the ownership andentitlement of the prize money and suits were filed. Even thereafter,viz., after dismissal of the suits, directions were issued by this Courtto the writ petitioner for fulfilling certain conditions for settlement ofthe prize money and according to the appellant/respondent, thoseconditions were not fulfilled in time. The learned counsel for therespondent/writ petitioner disputes the same. In order to appreciate thestand taken by both sides, we feel it relevant to advert to theparticulars furnished in the form of dates and events by the SpecialGovernment Pleader, which are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.DateEvents125.05.1988Prize winning ticket bearing No:AIH-236928 fetchedthe special first price of Rs.25 lakhs in theMadurai District Bumper Draw held on 25.05.1988.231.05.1988The Government in their D.O.letterNo.73057/Raffle/88-1, dated:31.05.1988, directed theDepartment to withheld payment if any due to PrizeWinning Ticket AIH-236928 and enclosing a copy oftelegram from Thiru Ulaganathan.317.06.1988The Prize Winning Ticket bearing the No:AIH-236928and its counterfoil were received from the Dr.Narayanan Pothi through the State Bank ofThiruvancore, Chennai Branch on 17.06.1988.4.06.1988O.S.No:220/88 was filed in the District Munsif Courtby Thiru Ulaganathan stating that the ticketreferred to above was purchased by him.516.12.1989Principal District Magistrate Srivilliputhurdirected this Department in his letterdated:16.12.1989 to produce the Prize Winning ticketto the Honourable Court on 05.01.1990.618.12.1989Again Srivilliputhur District Magistrate directedthis department in his letter dated:18.12.1989 notto produce the said prize winning ticket to thecourt until further orders.717.12.1991The Case No:O.S.No:220/88 was Dismissed as withdrawnin the District Munisf Court of Srivilliputhur witha liberty to file fresh petition and accordinglyfresh petition in case No.POP.7 of 91 was filed inthe Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur. (By ThiruUlaganathan)86/5/92Thiru Narayanan Poti filed W.P. in Madras High Courtin W.P.No:3647/92 seeking direction for payment ofprize money.9From 1992 to1996Lower Court case and High Court case are underenquiry.101996Thiru Ulaganathan filed a case at Sub-Court,Srivilliputhur in Case No:278/96-Filing Staypetition.112/9/97The Madras High Court in their orderdated:02.09.1997 directed the Director to producethe original prize winning ticket No:AIH-236928 on16.09.1997. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.DateEvents1216.09.1997Ticket was produced to the Madras High Court by theDirector of Raffles on 16.09.1997.1320.02.1998Madras High Court on 20.02.1998 ordered to make thepayment of prize money to Thiru Narayanan Pothi byfurnishing of B.G. Or Mortgage of property to avoidthe payment of double payment.1418.05.1998The petitioner was requested to furnish BankGuarantee for Rs.25 Lakhs in Rc.No.1817/B2/88 toenable the department to make the payment of prizemoney to him.1528.07.1998He was reminded on 28.07.1998.1628.09.1998Letter sent on 28.09.88 to the petitioner requestinghim to furnish a Bank Guarantee for making prizemoney which should have a time limit for 5 yearsinitially and which should be renewed further andkept alive until the disposal of the Civil Case inRc.1817/C2/88 Dt.:28.09.1998.179/11/98He was reminded on 09.11.1998 in this regard.1824.12.1998 Reminder was sent on 24.12.1998 again.1918.06.1999O.S.No:278/96 filed by Thiru Ulaganathan, Dismissedon 18.06.1999 at Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur.209/8/99Letter forwarding lower court orders was receivedfrom the petitioner on 09.08.1999 (LetterDated:04.08.1999).214/4/00Letter sent to Th.Narayanan Pothi on 04.04.2000 forfurnishing an undertaking duly signed by a NotaryPublic for the claims value of Rs.25 lakhs andRs.2.5 lakhs being the prize money and counterfoilBonus.2230.05.2000Letter sent to Thiru Narayanan Pothi on 30.05.2000requesting him to send a revised undertaking dulyincorporating the following sentence in the lastpara of the undertaking. "Certified that the prizeand counterfoil payment of Rs.27.5 lakhs will be thefirst and final payment to be paid to me by theDirectorate of Tamil Nadu Raffle Department is notresponsible for the delay in payment of the abovesum." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.DateEvents2326.06.2000 The petitioner informed the Department not to insistfor any undertaking regarding payment of prize moneyand demanded 18% interest. He further stated thathe will move the court if the department fails tomake the payment of prize money with 18% interest.2429.06.2000Opinion of the Government Pleader dated 29.06.2000not to make payment of interest.2528.05.2001 Government directed this department to release theprize money after knowing that Thiru Ulaganathan hasnot filed any appeal in the Madras High courtdt.28.05.2001 and no appeal was filed in High Courtof Madras by Thiru Ulaganathan vide the Spl.Govt.Pleader's letter dtd.28.09.2001.2612/11/01Honourable Single Judge of the Madras High Courtpassed order directing the Department to Pay theprize money to the petition with 6% interest fromMay 1988 onwards within 45 days. If the amount isnot paid within 45 days interest has to be paid at12% (in W.P.17476/2001).277/2/02Writ Appeal bearing No.537/2002, filed by thisDepartment, against the orders of the caseW.P.No.17476/2001 dtd.12.11.2001.283/4/02Stay granted in W.A.No.537/2002 by HonourableDivision Bench of High Court of Madras, on03.04.2002 against the orders of the caseW.P.No.17476/2001, dtd.12.11.2001.29.9.2003The Writ Appeal W.A.537/2002 came up for hearing andfinally, judgement delivered on 19.9.2003, thatpayment of prize money to be given to the petitionerwithin 15 days time from the date of order.3026.09.2003Payment of prize money after deducting Income tax ofRs.18,42,500/- was paid to Dr.R.Narayanan Poti,Kerala and acknowledgement received from him.10. The above mentioned details clearly show that the appellant is inno way responsible for not settling the amount within reasonable time. Itis also not in dispute that there is no provision in the Tamilnadu RafflesRules, 1976 for payment of interest for belated settlement of prize money.In this regard, it is relevant to refer the Division Bench decision ofAllahabad High Court in Mirza Javed Murtaza case, cited supra, relied onby the learned Special Government Pleader. With regard to claim ofinterest without a specific agreement and in the absence of statutoryprovision or guidelines or custom or usage, the Division Bench hasconcluded, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The law with regard to claim for interest is also bynow well settled. The claim for interest may besustained only in cases where the same is claimedeither in terms of the agreement itself or when it ispermitted by some law or custom or usage having theforce of law. Interest may be awarded for the periodprior to the date of the institution of the suit, ifthere is an agreement for the payment of interest atfixed rate, or, if interest is payable by the usage oftrade having the force of law, or under the provisionsof any substantive law entitling the plaintiff torecover interest, as for instances, under S.30 of theNegotiable Instruments Act and under S.61 of the Saleof Goods Act or Interest Act. Interest can be awardedif there was a debt or a 'sum certain' payable at acertain time or otherwise by virtue of some writtencontract and there must have been a demand in writing,stating that interest will be demanded from the dateof the demand (see Thawardas Pherumal .vs. Union ofIndia, AIR 1955 SC 468 and Union of India vs. RalliaRam, AIR 1963 SC 1685). In the absence of any usage orcontract, express or implied, or of any provision oflaw to justify the award of interest, the court cannotaward interest by way of damages caused on account ofwrongful detention of money."11. In the light of the factual details of our case, which we havealready narrated in the earlier paragraphs and of the fact that there isno provision in the Tamil Nadu Raffles Rules, 1976, we are in respectfulagreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the abovesaid case. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that thelearned Judge is not justified in awarding interest either 6% or 12% foralleged defaulted payment. Equally, we are not in agreement with theobservation made by the learned Judge that the appellant/respondent couldhave deposited the amount in Government, Corporation or Nationalised Bankpending various proceedings. It is not in dispute that there will not beany difficulty in getting the amount from Government. In suchcircumstances, there is no need to deposit the amount when admittedly,there were prolonged proceedings pending initially before the civil courtand thereafter before this Court. In the facts and circumstances andmaterials placed, we are satisfied that there is no wilful delay on thepart of the appellant/respondent in making the payment of the prize moneyafter declaration that the writ petitioner is prize winner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Under these circumstances, the order of the learned single Judgedated 12.11.2001 made in W.P.No.17476 of 2001, in so far as it relates tothe payment of interest is set aside; consequently, W.A.No.537 of 2002 isallowed. In view of our conclusion in WA.No.537 of 2002, we find no meritin the claim made by the writ petitioner for the enhancement of rate ofinterest. Accordingly, W.A.No.2008 of 2002, is dismissed. No costs inboth the writ appeals.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkhToThe Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Raffles,621, Anna Salai, Chennai -6.2 cc To Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate, SR.35, 28.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.144. Writ Appeal Nos.537 &2008/02GM(CO)RVL 18.01.2007