JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Advocates for the plaintiffs and defendants. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for recovering a sum of Rs. 1,11,273.50 inclusive of interest on the grounds that the defendant caused delay in making remittances of the amount of plaintiffs from Delhi Branch to Bombay Branch. The claim of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendants on two grounds, firstly on the ground of want of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and decide this suit and secondly, the plaintiffs cannot claim interest by way of damages. 2. On the basis of pleadings the following Issues were framed on 11-1-1999. ISSUES FINDINGS. 1. Does plaintiffs prove that the defendants as their bankers were to carry out telegraphic transfer of remittances immediately and without causing any delay so that no loss of interest is caused to the plaintiffs? Yes. 2. Does the plaintiffs prove that there was delay of 52 days in causing remittance of amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- and on that count the plaintiffs are entitled to claim and recover interest at the rate of 18% per annum of Rs. 58,980.82 praise from the defendants? Yes. 3. Does the plaintiffs prove that there was delay of 33 days in causing remittance of Rs. 24,00,000/- on the part of the defendants and whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim and recover interest at the rate of 18% per annum amounting to Rs. 39,057.53 paise? Yes. 4. Is the plaintiffs entitled to the decretal amount along with future interest and costs? See final order. 5. Does the defendants prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit? No. 6. Does the defendants prove that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim damages by way of interest? No. 7. What order and decree? As per final order. REASONS 3. The matter was fixed on board today for recording evidence. Both the Advocates for the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that the claim in the suit could be decided by this Court on the basis of the pleadings and documents and they do not want to lead any oral evidence. Consequently, arguments of both the Advocates were heard. 4. REASONS 3. The matter was fixed on board today for recording evidence. Both the Advocates for the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that the claim in the suit could be decided by this Court on the basis of the pleadings and documents and they do not want to lead any oral evidence. Consequently, arguments of both the Advocates were heard. 4. It was contended by the Counsel for the plaintiffs that there were specific and express directions given by the plaintiffs from Bombay to defendant No. 3 which is a branch of U.C.O. Bank at Delhi for remittances of the amount lying in the plaintiffs' account in the Delhi Branch, if the amount exceeds Rs. 1000/- by telegraphic advice, and this was on the basis of Exhibit A of the plaint which is a letter dated 26-10-1988. According to the plaintiffs, two of their amounts were lying in the Branch at Delhi U.C.O. Bank and they were Rs. 23,00,000/- and Rs. 24,00,000/- and there was delay of 52 days and 33 days respectively in remitting these amounts and this delay has resulted in causing loss to the plaintiff and hence they gave notice to all the defendants. Further according to the plaintiffs, Bombay Branch of the defendants agreed with their views and informed Delhi Branch that delay was unexplained and Delhi Branch was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. 4-A. On the other hand it was contended by Counsel for the defendants that firstly, this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit because the principal contract entered into by the plaintiffs was with the Delhi Branch and secondly, breach of contract in not remitting the amount as per the instructions of the plaintiffs was immediately occurred at Delhi, and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction. So far as merit of the claim is concerned, it was contended by Counsel for the defendants that under the provisions of section 73, Illustration "N" of the Indian Contract Act, and on the basis of ruling of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R 1966 Supreme Court 395 (The Union of India v. The West Punjab Factories Ltd.)1 and on the basis of ruling of the Privy Council reported in A.I.R. 1938 Privy Council 67 (Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji)2 and pursuant to the Reserve Bank of India's guide lines, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim damages by way of interest. 5. As against this, my attention was drawn by Counsel for the plaintiffs to the relief claimed in the plaint, particularly Explanation given in Exhibit 'L' and it was contended that the plaintiffs have specifically and separately claimed damages in respect of the loss suffered, and therefore, the objection of the defendants was not liable to be accepted. So far as point of jurisdiction is concerned, it was contended by Counsel for the plaintiffs that Exhibit A which was the basis of the agreement, though addressed to Delhi Branch of the UCO Bank, copy thereof was sent to the Bombay Branch, and account at Delhi Branch was opened by transferring a sum of Rs. 1000/- from Bombay Branch and since the defendants had their branch at Bombay, this Court has jurisdiction. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both the Advocates, particularly to the objection raised by Counsel for the defendants regarding jurisdiction and the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of damages by way of interest. So far as Issues are concerned, there is no dispute about contractual arrangement between the parties, and therefore, Issue No. 1 is to be answered in the affirmative. There is also no dispute about the delay. Hence Issue No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative. Issue No. 3 regarding delay of 33 days and that part of the Issue is to be answered in the affirmative and only two questions remain, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the damages by way of interest claimed in the suit and whether this Court has jurisdiction? 7. So far as objection to jurisdiction is concerned, it is true that the agreement regarding remittances was entered into by the plaintiffs with Delhi Branch of the UCO Bank. It is also true that it was the Delhi Branch which committed breach of contract. 7. So far as objection to jurisdiction is concerned, it is true that the agreement regarding remittances was entered into by the plaintiffs with Delhi Branch of the UCO Bank. It is also true that it was the Delhi Branch which committed breach of contract. However, these facts are not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of this Court, firstly because, the plaintiffs are having their business and registered office at Bombay, though that is not the consideration for deciding the jurisdiction, and secondly, the defendants are having their Branch at Bombay and thirdly, the nature of the agreement or arrangement between the plaintiffs and defendants was that the amount in excess of Rs. 1000/- would be remitted to the Account of the plaintiffs at Bombay. Therefore, the compliance of the agreement or arrangement was to result in remittance of the amount from Delhi to Bombay, and this part of the agreement is an essential part, directly giving jurisdiction to this Court. Therefore, part of cause of action and important part of cause of action being occurred in Bombay and hence this Court has jurisdiction and objection of the defendants in this regard is required to be rejected, and Issue No. 5 is to be answered in the negative. 8. The second objection of the defendant is, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim interest by way of damages. This objection has to be negatived on two grounds, firstly, there was delay on the part of the defendants in sending remittances from Delhi to Bombay, therefore, admittedly, there was breach of agreement by defendants and it the defendants committed breach of agreement, then the plaintiffs are legally entitled to claim compensation for breach of agreement. The question is whether the compensation can be claimed, and if so, the question is, in what form the compensation can be claimed and whether naming of compensation by the plaintiffs in the plaint as damages by way of interest will affect the right of the plaintiffs adversely to claim the damages. 9. The question is whether the compensation can be claimed, and if so, the question is, in what form the compensation can be claimed and whether naming of compensation by the plaintiffs in the plaint as damages by way of interest will affect the right of the plaintiffs adversely to claim the damages. 9. In my opinion, once it is held that the defendants have committed breach of agreement and once it is held that on that count the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation under the provisions of section 73 of the Contract Act which reads as under:- "When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage cause to him thereby, .................." and this clearly shows that Law has recognized the right of the party to claim compensation if the party has suffered on account of breach of contract, the claim of the plaintiffs is required to be considered. 10. Therefore, once the right to recover compensation is recognized by Law and granted to the party to a contract, then claim of the party for compensation is required to be considered and awarded by the Court notwithstanding the nomenclature used for claiming compensation i.e. whether in the form of damages or interest. 11. Further the plaintiffs' claim clearly shows that the amount of Rs. 98,038 = 35 is claimed by being the amount of loss suffered by the plaintiffs due to negligence, carelessness, wrongful acts and omission on the part of the defendants in causing delay in making the remittances as set out in the plaint. My attention was drawn by the Counsel for the defendants to Paragraph No. 5 of the plaint wherein the plaintiffs have stated that they have suffered loss in the said sum aggregating to Rs. 58,980.82 being a loss of interest for 52 days. And therefore, according to Counsel for the defendants, this claim in the suit is actually the claim of interest. I am not convinced by this objection firstly because once breach of that contract was committed by the defendants, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim compensation and if the compensation is claimed in the form of loss of interest which the plaintiffs would have gained, then same cannot be denied. I am not convinced by this objection firstly because once breach of that contract was committed by the defendants, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim compensation and if the compensation is claimed in the form of loss of interest which the plaintiffs would have gained, then same cannot be denied. Secondly, if at all the claim of the plaintiffs is to be considered, the same is required to be considered with reference to the plaint and particulars of claim given by plaintiffs. The judgment relied upon by Counsel for the defendants referred to above particularly A.I.R 1966 S.C. 395, the Head Note (e) of this reported ruling does not appear to be in conformity with the findings of the Supreme Court. Head Note (e) reads as under:- "(e) Civil P.C. (1908), S. 34 Interest for period upto date of suit - When can be awarded. In the absence of any usage or contract express or implied, or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest, interest by way of damages cannot be awarded. No interest could thus be awarded for the period upto the date of the suit." Where as para 16 of the judgment which is referred to above in the aforesaid Head Note starts as under:- "The next contention is that no interest could be awarded for the period before the suit on the amount of damages decreed." If the question is where interest could be awarded on the amount of damages then it is altogether different question. In the instant case also the plaintiffs have claimed interest on damages as per the particulars of claim given in Exhibit L and not only on the basis of the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court, but as per well settled principle of law no interest on damages can be granted. 12. Counsel for the defendants relied upon a judgment of Privy Council reported in A.I.R. 1938 Privy Council 67 referred to above, to fortify his contention that the interest for the period prior to the date of the suit if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at a fixed rate or it is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law or under the provision of any substantive law entitling the plaintiff to recover interest. The Privy Council has further held that the interest can be granted if the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same under the provisions of any substantive law. For e.g. Under section 80-81 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court may award interest at 6% p.a. when no rate of interest fixed in the promissory note or bill of exchange. The Privy Council has also taken into consideration provisions of Interest Act, 32 of 1839 and observed that the Court may allow interest to the plaintiff, if the amount claimed is a sum certain which is payable at a certain time by virtue of a written instrument. It was observed that as per proviso to Interest Act "interest shall be payable in all cases in which it is now payable by law". 13. It will be clear from the facts of the case before the Privy Council that in that case neither the usage nor any express contract or implied agreement was put forth in respect of the claim of interest. Similarly the Court has also observed that the facts of the case did not attract the equitable jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore, could not come under the purview of the aforesaid proviso. In that case before the Privy Council, the High Court had allowed interest by way of damages caused to the plaintiff for the wrongful detention of their money by railway. But considering the aforesaid facts, it was held by the Supreme Court on the basis of Illustration (n) of section 73 of Contract Act, that there was no law to pay interest and it was held that the plaintiff has also failed to prove their rights to pay interest. 14. In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment cannot be of any help to the defendants because the Privy Council has not taken into consideration the right of the person who suffers on account of breach of the contract to claim compensation for a loss or damages caused to him. Since in this case, the defendants have committed breach of contract in not remitting the amount of the plaintiff from Delhi to Bombay then the plaintiff is a person who has suffered on account of breach of contract and as such the plaintiff is entitled for compensation. Since in this case, the defendants have committed breach of contract in not remitting the amount of the plaintiff from Delhi to Bombay then the plaintiff is a person who has suffered on account of breach of contract and as such the plaintiff is entitled for compensation. The interest that is claimed by the plaintiff is not claimed as interest, as such it is claimed as damages or compensation for the breach, and therefore, claiming of compensation under the head of Interest would not make any difference, if it is proved that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for Rs. 13,235.15 which is an interest on the amount of damages or loss suffered is required to be rejected. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 98,038.35 ps. with proportionate costs and future interest at the rate of Rs. 15% p.a. from the date of suit till realization. The defendants are directed to pay jointly and severally the decretal amount to the plaintiffs. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Certified copy expedited.