The State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahadev Prasad

interest act - rate of interest--interest cannot be allowed by way of damages for wrongful detention of money.;(b) interest act - interest-no agreement to pay interest-interest to be allowed from date of demand.;the plaintiff is entitled to interest prior to the date of the suit either on the basis of contract or usage or under any provision of law justifying the award of interest.;there is also no agreement to pay interest. the interest act allows interest on all debts or sums certain when a notice is given that interest will be charged from the date of demand until the date of payment.;the plaintiff, in the circumstances, is entitled to interest only from the date of the notice that is, 18-4-70. no. intrest can be allowed to the plaintiff prior to the date of the notice. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....are that the plaintiff-respondent gave bid of rs. 19,500/- at the auction conducted by the state of rajasthan in res-pect of certain property situate in karauli. the auction took place under the rajasthan nazool building disposal by public auction rules, 1967. under the rules the bid has to be sanctioned and confirmed by the deputy district disposal committee. the plaintiff, however, deposited one-fourth of the amount of the bid, that is rs. 4875/- on 2-2-68 the date on which he gave the bid. it appears that the required sanction from the authority was not conveyed to the plaintiff for a sufficiently long time. the plaintiff therefore served a notice under section 80 cpc calling upon the state either to accept his bid or to return the amount deposited by him with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within two months of the receipt of the notice. the plaintiff ultimately filed the present suit for the recovery of rs. 4875/- as principal and rs. 1616/- by way of interest--total rs. 6491/-. the learned additional district judge, gangapur city, decreed the suit in to and allowed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the principal amount of rs. 4875/-. the defendant-state of rajasthan has now preferred this appeal challenging the decree to the extent of rs. 1616 allowed as interest prior to the date of the suit. it is common ground between the parties that there was no agreement between the parties for payment of interest in respect of the one-fourth amount of the bid deposited by the plaintiff the learned additional district judge has allowed interest as damages on the ground that if the amount had been refunded to the plaintiff, he would have earned interest at the rate of two to three percent per month. as held by the judicial committee in bengal nagpur railway co. ltd. v. ruttanji ramji and ors. air 1938 pc 67 interest cannot be allowed by way of damages, to a person for wrongful detention of money. the plaintiff is entitled.....