Delay and laches defeated a writ challenge to interest on warehoused goods, leaving the liability question undecided.

Writ relief against an interest demand on warehoused goods was refused because the petitioners approached the Court after a long delay and had themselves delayed clearance for several years. The Court did not decide the substantive question whether interest was payable where the interest provision came into force after warehousing; instead, it declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in view of delay and laches. The challenge to the demand therefore failed on the threshold ground of unexplained delay, without any ruling on the underlying liability to interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to clearance of the warehoused goods without payment of interest in writ jurisdiction despite the delay in seeking relief.

Analysis: The petitioners challenged the demand for interest on the ground that the interest provision came into force after the goods were warehoused. The Court did not decide the substantive question of liability to pay interest. Instead, it found that the petitioners had delayed clearance for several years and had approached the Court only after a long lapse of time. In view of that delay, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in their favour.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to relief, and the challenge to the demand for interest failed on the ground of delay and laches.

---