Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

In re Ramans Emporium Ltd [1997] FJHC 107; Hbe0042d.96s (7 August 1997)

Fiji Islands - In re Ramans Emporium Ltd - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COF FIJI

AT SUVA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUVA WINDING UP ACTION NO. 42/96

(Labasa Winding Up Action No. 2/96)

IN THE MATTER of RAMANS EMPORIUM LIMITED/p>

AND:

INMATTER of the COMPANIES ACT, 1983

SUVA CIVIL ACTION NO. 146span>

(Labasa Civil Action No. 5/96)

BETW/span>

RAMANS EMPORIUM LIMITED

Plaintiff

(Company)

AND:

HARIMAYA & SONS (PTE) LTD

Defendant

(Petitioner)

Mr. A. Kohli for Plaintiff/Respondent

Mr. V. Kapadia for Defendant/Applicant

This is the Defendant's Summons for directions that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant further interest on the principal sum from 2 February 1996 to date of payment at the rate of 15.5% per annum.

In support of the Summons MANILAL BHINDI, the authorized agor the Defendant in Fiji, filed an affidavit. The facts bris briefly are that pursuant to judgment delivered herein on 15 January 1997 the Plaintiff paid the sum of money that was ordered to be paid to the defendant namely SGD$21,799.33 on 3 February 1997.

This sum was made up of interest at the rate of 15.5% p.a. on the principal amount and accumulatmulated interest outstanding on the two Bills of Exchange upto 2 February 1996.

The defendant is claiming that there is further interest in the sum of SGD$5291.60 from 3 Fry 1996 to 31 January 1997 1997 due and payable by the plaintiff calculated on the sum of SGD$34,422.00 which was due and owing.

The piff opposes the application through its Company Director PRAKASH KUMAR. In his affidavit Mrit Mr. Kumar says that "all claims in respect of civil action instituted by the Company were settled and finalised and judgment in respect of the claim has been delivered on 15th of January 1997." He said that the judgment amount has been paid to the defendant. He further says that the judgment was final and binding.

The sole issue is whether the defendant is entitled to the further interest as claimed bearn mind that judgment has alas already been given.

Both counsel addressed me on the issue and also filed written submissions. I have giue consideration to their aeir arguments.

For detailed facts I refer to my said judgment suffice it to say that on 7 May 1996 the plai agreed to pay the principancipal sum of SGD$12622.87 into Court and this sum was not in dispute. The remaining question was whether interest is payable by the plaintiff in the sum of $21,799.33. The court held that it was; that was ordered and it was paid.

Thisof $21,799.33 was made up of interest upto 2 February 1996 whereas judgment for the said suid sum was given on 15 January 1997 and payment was made on 3rd February 1997.

I had held that interest at the rate of 15.5% p.a. is payable on the two Bills of Exchange. ugh I said in my judgment tent that the plaintiff pay the said sum of $21,799.33 made up as stated above, the defendant I hold is entitled to interest on the Bills of Exchange upto date of payment i.e. from 3 February 1996 to 31 January 1997. The defendant cannot in law be deprived of this further interest which it is now claiming. This further interest was not specifically mentioned in the judgment as payable but this is the defendant's entitlement in law under the Bills of Exchange.

As Mr. Kapadia submitted thaall material times interest was an integral part of the two Bills of Exchange and was alwayalways payable by the Plaintiff. The plaintiff does not dispute either the rate of interest or that interest is payable under bills of exchange; it is merely disputing this additional interest which is now being claimed.

ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> The judgment in my view was a final judgment but that does not prevent an applon being made for consequenequential orders. I refer to IN re a DEBTOR (No. 87 of 1993) THE TIMES of 19.7.95 p.42 before RIMER J where he said and I adopt it here:

"Consequential orders of various sorts commonly made after final inal judgment was given in proceedings, and they might involve further applications to the same judge who made them. However, the possibility that some such order might be made did not mean that the proceedings remained interlocutory until the last order was made."

There it was held:

"The fact that consequential orders mig made pursuant to a decisiocision of the court which decided the rights of the parties did not convert proceedings which were by their nature final into interlocutory proceedings."

Further Or.20 r.9 of The High Court Rules allows for applications toade by summons to correct aect any slip or omission. It provides:

"10. Clerical mistakes in judgments ders, or errors arising theg therein from any accidental slip or omissions, may at any time be corrected by the Court on motion or summons without an appeal."

In the outcome, for the above reasons the applicant/defendant succeeds on its Summons and ordered that the Plaintiffntiff pay to the Defendant further interest on the principal sum from 2 February 1996 to 3 February 1997 at the rate of 15.5% per annum amounting to SGD$5291.60 as claimed. I award costs of this application against the respondent/plaintiff which is to be taxed unless agreed.

D. Pathik

Judge

At Suva

7 August 1997

Hbe0042d.96s

---

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/1997/107.html