Penal delivery deduction and excess interest claims were curtailed; admitted dues could not be withheld on an income-tax notice.

A penal contractual stipulation for delayed delivery could not justify deduction of the claimed amount where no actual loss or liquidated damages were proved, so the deduction was disallowed. The employer also could not withhold admitted dues on the basis of an income-tax notice after liquidation had commenced, particularly without having discharged any tax liability to the department, so the withholding was rejected. On interest, the court held that discretion under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure must remain within the relief claimed; interest could not be awarded at a higher rate than the petition sought, so the rate was reduced to 12% per annum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to deduct Rs. 7,100 on account of alleged late delivery of fabricated bus bodies; (ii) Whether the appellants could withhold the admitted amount at the instance of the Income-tax Department; (iii) Whether the decree for interest at 15% per annum from the date of the petition was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to deduct Rs. 7,100 on account of alleged late delivery of fabricated bus bodies.

Analysis: The agreement provided for a charge of Rs. 100 per day beyond 90 days for delayed delivery. The Court treated the stipulation as penal in nature and not enforceable as such. No evidence was produced to show actual damages suffered by the appellants, and no consolidated amount had been proved as liquidated damages.

Conclusion: The deduction of Rs. 7,100 was not permissible and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants could withhold the admitted amount at the instance of the Income-tax Department.

Analysis: The amount was said to be detained pursuant to an income-tax notice under section 226(3). The Court held that, after liquidation had commenced, the appellants could not retain the company's admitted dues on that basis, especially when they had not themselves discharged any tax liability by payment to the department.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to withhold the admitted amount, and this issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the decree for interest at 15% per annum from the date of the petition was sustainable.

Analysis: The claim in the petition was confined to interest at 12% per annum. Although section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits interest in money decrees and gives the Court discretion, that discretion must operate within the relief claimed. The Court held that interest could not be granted at a higher rate than what was claimed, even if the transaction was commercial.

Conclusion: The award of 15% per annum interest was unsustainable and was modified to 12% per annum in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of interest, while the findings on deduction and withholding of the decretal amount were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may exercise discretion under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to award interest in a money decree, but it cannot grant interest beyond the relief specifically claimed, and a penal contractual stipulation unsupported by proof of actual damage is not enforceable as a deduction.

---