https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458012 A counterclaim for compensation based on alleged wrongful termination of dealership failed because the defendants raised it only after suit and produced no account records or other proof of quantifiable loss. The claim for pre-suit interest also failed, as such interest depends on substantive law and the Interest Act, 1978, and the record showed no written instrument, proved agreement, established usage, or valid written notice supporting interest. By contrast, pendente lite and future interest awarded at 12% per annum was left undisturbed because the rate was a discretionary matter under civil procedure and no arbitrariness was shown. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2024 14:26:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458012 A counterclaim for compensation based on alleged wrongful termination of dealership failed because the defendants raised it only after suit and produced no account records or other proof of quantifiable loss. The claim for pre-suit interest also failed, as such interest depends on substantive law and the Interest Act, 1978, and the record showed no written instrument, proved agreement, established usage, or valid written notice supporting interest. By contrast, pendente lite and future interest awarded at 12% per annum was left undisturbed because the rate was a discretionary matter under civil procedure and no arbitrariness was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458012