| Fiji Islands - In re Ramans Emporium Ltd - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF 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
AND:
IN THE MATTER of the COMPANIES ACT, 1983
SUVA CIVIL ACTION NO. 146/96
(Labasa Civil Action No. 5/96)
BETWEEN:
RAMANS EMPORIUM LIMITED
Plaintiff
(Company)
AND:
HARIMAYA & SONS (PTE) LTD
Defendant
(Petitioner)
Mr. A. Kohli for Plaintiff/Respondent
Mr. V. Kapadia for Defendant/Applicant
DECISION
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 agent for the Defendant in Fiji, filed an affidavit. The facts 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 said sum was made up of interest at the rate of 15.5% p.a. on the principal amount and accumulated 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 February 1996 to 31 January 1997 due and
payable by the plaintiff calculated on the sum of SGD$34,422.00 which was due and owing.
The plaintiff opposes the application through its Company Director PRAKASH KUMAR. In his affidavit 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 bearing in mind that judgment has already been
given.
Both counsel addressed me on the issue and also filed written submissions. I have given due consideration to their arguments.
For detailed facts I refer to my said judgment suffice it to say that on 7 May 1996 the plaintiff agreed to pay the principal 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.
This sum of $21,799.33 was made up of interest upto 2 February 1996 whereas judgment for the said 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. Although I said in my judgment 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 that at all material times interest was an integral part of the two Bills of Exchange and was always 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.
The judgment in my view was a final judgment but that does not prevent an application being made for consequential 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 were commonly made after final 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 might be made pursuant to a decision 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 to be made by summons to correct any slip or omission. It provides:
"10. Clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, or errors arising 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 it is ordered that the Plaintiff 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
