J U D G E M E N T:- The suit was laid by the plaintiff against the first defendant for a sum of Rs.19,02,299.39 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation with cost. 2. The plaint averments are as follows: The plaintiff was appointed as Clearing and Forwarding agent on behalf of several importers. The first defendant was a steamer agent and collects the storage charges and also security deposits from the plaintiff to the second defendant. The second defendant was Chennai Port Trust and the cargo which arrived in the containers were stored in the premises and levies storage charges for storing the container in its premises. 3. The Plaintiff utilised two types of containers viz.20' and 40' of the first defendant for its importers. The plaintiff paid the container storage charges to the first defendant as per the scale of rates fixed by the second respondent by its order dated 6.5.1994 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 6.7.1994. The payments were made on various dates from 20.5.1994 to 24.3.1996 by the plaintiff to the first defendant. The first defendant has also issued receipts for the same. 4. Subsequently, the second defendant by its notification dated 4.7.1995 and published in the issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 19.7.1995 revised the scale of rates with effect from 4.7.1995. In view of the revision, the first defendant was bound to refund the excess amount collected by it from the plaintiff towards container storage charges during the period from 6.5.1994 and 6.7.1995 and also refund the security deposits for the container collected during the period from 20.5.1994 to 24.3.1996 from the plaintiff as the empty containers had been returned. The plaintiff is entitled to get the benefit of the new scale of rates revised by the second defendant and also entitled to get the refund of the security deposit for containers received by the first defendant. As on 6.7.1995 a sum of Rs.11,82,531.80 is due from the first defendant. 5. Inspite of repeated reminders the first defendant has failed to pay the amount and hence the plaintiff sent letters dated 26.12.1995, 12.01.1996 and 21.05.1996 requesting the first defendant to refund the excess amount collected by them towards containers storage charges as well as the security deposits collected by it to the plaintiff. 5. Inspite of repeated reminders the first defendant has failed to pay the amount and hence the plaintiff sent letters dated 26.12.1995, 12.01.1996 and 21.05.1996 requesting the first defendant to refund the excess amount collected by them towards containers storage charges as well as the security deposits collected by it to the plaintiff. The first defendant has also acknowledged the same and agreeing to pay only a sum of Rs.2,06,467/- to the plaintiff. But the liability acknowledged by the first defendant, the first defendant has not been paid to the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff has also sent a legal notice to the first defendant through its counsel on 24.8.1996, demanding the refund of the excess amount collected by them towards containers deposit and Port storage charges. The first defendant has received the notice but has neither replied nor made the payment to the plaintiff. There is no relief claimed against the second defendant. Hence the above suit. 7. The written statement filed on behalf of the first defendant is as follows: The plaintiff does not possess the authority or right to file the present suit on behalf of the several importers without impleading them as plaintiffs in the present suit and that for the purpose of security only cheques towards the value of empty containers were obtained by way of security deposits. However, the said cheques were not encashed and were kept in the safe custody until a particular container is returned and that there is no money encashed on account of security deposit collected from the plaintiff and as such there is no amount due to the plaintiff and it is the duty of the plaintiff, who was in charge of the clearance of the empty containers, after the said containers are destuffed to notify the second defendant in time about such clearance. However, the plaintiff failed in its duty to notify the second defendant in time which had resulted the containers being charged, even after their removal from the custody of the second defendant. The plaintiff had also failed in its duty to furnish the dates on which the containers were so removed after destuffing from the second defendant and the places to where the containers were finally returned to the first defendant. Hence, the second defendant had collected storage charges for the containers which had been so removed based on the computer recording. The plaintiff had also failed in its duty to furnish the dates on which the containers were so removed after destuffing from the second defendant and the places to where the containers were finally returned to the first defendant. Hence, the second defendant had collected storage charges for the containers which had been so removed based on the computer recording. Due to the failure on the part of the plaintiff to adhere to the duties, the first defendant has been put to an enormous loss, which the plaintiff is legally bound to indemnify. 8. The first defendant has denied the averment that the original receipts have been handed to the importers at their request and that the second defendant is empowered to collect container at charges from the defendant in terms of the scale of rates respect of the containers handled. The first defendant has denied that all the containers were duly returned to first defendant by plaintiff, after the cargo was destuffed from them. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove that all the containers are duly returned and as such the plaintiff is entitled to refund the security deposits. The documents filed along with the plaint are only the receipt issued by the first defendant and the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the fact that the containers were duly returned. 9. The first defendant further contends that in terms of the scale of rates, the second defendant was collecting the container storage charges from the first defendant and the plaintiff was reimbursing the amount so paid on behalf of several importers. The second defendant has enhanced the charges unilaterally and hiked the same to a great extent and challenging the notification issued for hiking the charges, several steamer agents filed writ petition challenging such arbitrary increase. Thereafter the charges were reduced to certain extent by the second defendant. This reduction in charges is also a subject matter of the writ petition and the said writ petition is pending before this Court and the matter is subjudice. The defendant has been collecting the charges at the increased rate obtaining bank guarantees from the various importers in order to safeguard itself from any future eventuality in the event of the writ petition being dismissed or the charges being modified. The defendant has been collecting the charges at the increased rate obtaining bank guarantees from the various importers in order to safeguard itself from any future eventuality in the event of the writ petition being dismissed or the charges being modified. Hence, as the matter is subjudice, the present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the difference in storage rates is premature and is liable to be rejected at this juncture. The plaint is totally silent regarding the breakdown details of the container charges and the security deposits paid by the plaintiffs to the first defendant for utilising the containers. The plaintiff is also not clear as regards its claim and the statement of account filed along with the plaint is only a self serving document and the same will not in any way prove the fact that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim from the first defendant. 10. The defendant states that since several containers were not accounted or returned to the first defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain refund of the security deposits. The first defendant denies that it is due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,82,531.80 to the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff is highly speculative and is not entitled to the claim as prayed for. The first defendant denies that a sum of Rs.2,06,467/- has been admitted as due and liable to be paid to the plaintiff. The first defendant denies that a statement of account was also duly furnished to the plaintiff admitting liability for a sum of Rs.2,06,467/-. It is true that the plaintiff issued notices dated 24.11.95, 26.12.95, 12.1.95 and 25.1.96 and that the plaintiff has not quantified the amount. Only in the legal notice dated 24.8.1996, the plaintiff has purported to have claimed a sum of Rs.21,76,082/-. However, the first defendant is at a loss to note that the plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,02,299.39 consisting of Rs.11,82,531.80 towards principal and Rs.7,19,767.59 towards interest. This change of the claim by the plaintiff would clearly indicate that the plaintiff has no basis for filing the suit and the entire suit is speculative, frivolous and vexatious. The defendant denies that it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum as demanded in the plaint since there is no contract to pay interest. 11. The defendant denies that it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum as demanded in the plaint since there is no contract to pay interest. 11. The reply statement filed by the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff denies the allegations in the written statement of the first defendant. The plaintiff has paid the amounts in respect of which the suit is filed, from and out of its funds. The said amounts were not paid out of monies advanced by importers. The payments made by the plaintiff by way of cheques drawn in the name of the first defendant alone. The first defendant has also issued receipts in the name of the plaintiff only. 12. The first defendant received the cheques from the plaintiff on a principal to principal basis and not as an agent of disclosed foreign principal. The plaintiff is seeking reimbursement of amounts paid by it out its funds to the first defendant, which the first defendant is bound to return the same. The first defendant has encashed the cheques issued by the plaintiff by way of security deposit and the same shall be established at the time of trial. The first defendant could have returned the original cheques if really the same had not been presented for collection. 13. The containers being discharged from the various vessels for which the plaintiff is the clearing agent and the first defendant a steamer agent, it will be in the custody of the second defendant. The second defendant will release the containers only on the instructions of the first defendant on or before a date mentioned by the first defendant. On permission being granted by the second defendant the containers are taken to the destuffing yard for destuffing. After destuffing, the empty containers are handed over to the first defendant yard after obtaining the signature of the first defendant's representative, on the container operation form. The original form is also handed over to the first defendant who will then cancel the bond with the customs. 14. The Plaintiff has returned all the containers entrusted to it by the first defendant. The first defendant has to submit a bond to the customs authorities for the container which is sent out of the Madras Port Trust to the destuffing yard. The said bond will be cancelled on return of the container. 14. The Plaintiff has returned all the containers entrusted to it by the first defendant. The first defendant has to submit a bond to the customs authorities for the container which is sent out of the Madras Port Trust to the destuffing yard. The said bond will be cancelled on return of the container. The first defendant is called upon to produce the details of the running bond submitted in respect of the containers. All these bonds would have been cancelled. The first defendant has also issued a statement of account duly signed by it acknowledging its liability to the extent of Rs.2,06,467/- with detail of charges. The first defendant had collected container storage charges and detention charges on the basis of rates fixed by the second defendant, from the plaintiff. Thereafter, the second defendant had reduced the rates on a retrospective basis. The first defendant is duty bound to return the difference. The retention of the difference by the first defendant amounts to unjust enrichment. The first defendant's refusal to refund difference between the original and reduced rates to the plaintiff is illegal. In all other respects, the case made out by the plaintiff in the plaint stand and the plaintiff prays that the suit be decreed as prayed for in the plaint. 15. After hearing both sides and on the basis of the pleadings raised on either side, this Court had framed the following issues on 9.2.2000 for disposal. (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the sum of Rs.19,02,299.39 from the defendants ? (2)Whether the first defendant is entitled to any protection under section 230 of the Indian Contract Act ? (3)Whether the first defendant is not liable to refund the excess container storage charges to the plaintiff ? (4)Whether the first defendant is not liable to pay interest at 24% per annum ? (5)Whether the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties ? (6)To what relief ? 16. The plaintiff has examined its Managing Director as P.W.1 and had produced Exhibits P-1 to P-18. The defendants did not adduce any oral evidence but the first defendant alone has produced Exhibits D-1 to D-3 in support of his case. 17. Heard Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr.K.Vijay Sundar, learned counsel for the first defendant. The second defendant remained exparte. 18. The defendants did not adduce any oral evidence but the first defendant alone has produced Exhibits D-1 to D-3 in support of his case. 17. Heard Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr.K.Vijay Sundar, learned counsel for the first defendant. The second defendant remained exparte. 18. Issue No.5: The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs.19,02,299.39 and for subsequent interest and cost towards the excess amount paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant in the course of payment of container storage charges for clearing the goods from the container imported for various importers through foreign vessels, caused due to the reduction of container storage charges by the second defendant with retrospective effect. The plaintiff is the forwarding and clearing agent duly licensed by the customs department who is serving the importers for payment of charges. The first defendant is the steamer agent and authorised by the second defendant for the purpose of collecting the container storage charges and collecting the security deposits for the due return of the containers after destuffing those containers by the clearing agents. The suit transactions were in between May 1994 and March 1996 and during that time, the plaintiff was the clearing agent of various importers had paid monies to the first defendant towards container storage charges for the imported goods in containers and also paid the security deposits for the due return of containers, after destuffing as per the tariff mentioned in Exhibit P-1 notification. The said notification was challenged before this Court in writ proceedings as exorbitant and without any proportion and even before the disposal of the said writ petition, the second defendant had reduced the container storage charges on 4.7.1995 taking effect from 6.7.1994. Admittedly, the payments made during the period in between May 1994 and March 1996 were as per the tariff mentioned in Exhibit P-1 notification. Due to the reduction of container storage charges as per the subsequent notification issued by the second defendant with retrospective effect the payments already made by the plaintiff from 6.7.1994 to 24.3.1996 were excessively paid and the said excess amount is liable to be refunded to the plaintiff. 19. Due to the reduction of container storage charges as per the subsequent notification issued by the second defendant with retrospective effect the payments already made by the plaintiff from 6.7.1994 to 24.3.1996 were excessively paid and the said excess amount is liable to be refunded to the plaintiff. 19. The plaintiff has stated these particulars of transactions had in between the plaintiff and the first defendant in paragraphs 4 to 6 and it was admitted by the first defendant as substantially true and correct. However, the cheques presented towards the security deposits said to have been paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant were not presented to the bankers' of the first defendant and therefore the claim for the refund of the security deposits cannot be directed against the first defendant. But the plaintiff had replied that those cheques issued by the plaintiffs towards security deposits of the containers to the first defendant were encashed by the first defendant. Therefore, the first defendant is liable to pay the said amount also. Apart from that it has been contended by the first defendant that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for impleading all the importers or filing the suit as in a representative capacity on behalf of the importers and therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff had filed the suit as the principal since he was a statutory agent for the importers and he had invested money to receive any money from the importers towards the payment of security deposit and the container storage charges and therefore, the plaintiff was personally interested in the suit even otherwise his status would be an agent coupled with the interest. 20. 20. Mr.S.Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit in his argument that the suit is maintainable in law as he had filed the suit for the recovery of the money to an extent of Rs.19,72,684.80 since it was paid out of its own funds which could be evidenced through Exhibits P-2 to P-8 and the plaintiff used to pay the monies payable for clearing the goods imported by its clients i.e. importers out of its funds and thereafter only the plaintiff would charge its clients and therefore, the privity of contract in between the plaintiff and the first defendant would be that of principal to principal and the first defendant cannot also take the shelter as the steamer agent since the first defendant was collecting money for storage charges and security deposit for the containers belonging to the first defendant and the storage charges in turn would be paid to the second defendant only and therefore the relationship of principal to principal was maintained in the said suit dealings and therefore, there is no necessity of impleading the importers nor to file the suit under order I Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. He would further submit in his argument that the first defendant received the money from the plaintiff towards container storage charges and the security deposit amounts not for paying towards the foreign vessels through which the Cargos were imported, but were received towards the security deposit of the containers belonging to him and the payment to be made to the second defendant. He would also submit in his argument that the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents in Exs.P-1 to P-18 especially Ex.P-2 series containing 102 receipts issued by the first defendant would amply show that the amounts were paid by the plaintiff towards container storage charges as per the tariff mentioned in Ex.P1 notification and the said tariff was reduced by the subsequent notification in Exhibit P-9. The plaintiff had paid those payments personally for its clients (ie) importers and the privity of contract was only in between plaintiff and first defendant and till the remuneration is paid to the plaintiff he has got an interest coupled with agency. Therefore, the first defendant cannot invoke the provisions of Section 230 of Indian Contract Act. The suit filed against the defendants is therefore maintainable. Therefore, the first defendant cannot invoke the provisions of Section 230 of Indian Contract Act. The suit filed against the defendants is therefore maintainable. He would draw the attention of the Court towards the judgement of Supreme Court reported in 2006 (1) SCC at page 442 in Tashi Delek Gaming Solution Limited and another Vs. State of karnataka and others to the effect that an agent coupled with interest has a right to sue. Therefore, the first defendant is not entitled to retain the said money as he is not entitled to enrich on the money belonging to the plaintiff. He would also submit that the first defendant had encashed the cheques issued by the plaintiff towards security deposit collected for the due return of the containers and the first defendant had falsely contended that he did not encash the cheques. He would request the Court to verify the entries in the pass book Exhibits P-3 to P-8. He would also bring to the notice of this Court about the acknowledgement of liability made by the first defendant through his letter Exhibit P-14. He would also submit that the defendants did not reply to the notice issued to them in Exhibit P-15 and Exhibit P-18, even though they have received them. 21. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would also submit that the defendant had not let in any evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff established through the evidence adduced by him. He would again insist in his argument that the plaintiff had paid the amount under Ex.P-2 series to the first defendant and the privity of contract was existing only in between the plaintiff and the first defendant and he had not claimed any amount from the foreign principal since no privity of contract between the plaintiff and various foreign vessels and the contractual liability is to be meted out by the first defendant as against the 2nd defendant. He would further submit that the defendants cannot deny the payment of refund amount payable due to the retrospective reduction of the container storage charges effected by Ex. P-9, the subsequent notification published by 2nd defendant. He would further submit that the defendants cannot deny the payment of refund amount payable due to the retrospective reduction of the container storage charges effected by Ex. P-9, the subsequent notification published by 2nd defendant. The status of the plaintiff in respect of the contract in between the plaintiff and the first defendant would be governed by Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act and the application of Section 230 of Indian Contract Act cannot be made available to the first defendant. He would further submit that the documents produced in Ex.P-2 receipts and the statement of accounts in Ex.P-16 coupled with the admitted facts of the case would be sufficient for ascertaining the money claimed by the plaintiff and there is no necessity of taking any accounts. He would resort to the judgement of our Supreme Court reported in 2006 (2) SCC 285 K.C.Skaria Vs. Govt. Of State of Kerala, in support of his case. Since the second defendant itself had reduced the tariff towards the container storage charges, the pendency of Writ Appeal against the notification Ex.P1 would not in any way subjudice the claim of the plaintiff since if any further reduction of storage charges has been ordered in the Writ Appeal, that would give raise to a separate cause of action and this claim of the plaintiff will not be affected due to the acceptance of the second defendant in passing a subsequent notification in Ex.P-9 for the reduction of container storage charges. Therefore, he would request the Court to decree the suit as prayed for. 22. The learned counsel for the defendant Mr.Bijay Sundar would submit in his argument that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and the importers who had paid the money through the plaintiff alone should have filed the suit and if the plaintiff wanted to file the suit on behalf of the importers, he ought to have filed the suit in the representative capacity, as the ultimate beneficiaries would be the importers. He would further submit that the very fact that the claim of the plaintiff made in Ex. P-13, the notice of demand made by the plaintiff to the first defendant, that his clients are asking the plaintiff to refund the amount very often would go to show that the plaintiff is acting on behalf of his clients only. He would further submit that the very fact that the claim of the plaintiff made in Ex. P-13, the notice of demand made by the plaintiff to the first defendant, that his clients are asking the plaintiff to refund the amount very often would go to show that the plaintiff is acting on behalf of his clients only. More over, he would submit in his argument that P.W.1 had admitted in his evidence that the plaintiff was separately maintaining the accounts in ledgers and the non-production of the said ledgers would go to show that the claim made through statement of account by the plaintiff cannot be sustained. He would also draw the attention of the Court that Ex.P-14 produced by the plaintiff would show a credit column mentioning the outstanding amounts payable to the importers and therefore the claim made in the suit could be filed only by the importers and not by the plaintiff. He would also submit that the plaintiff did not advance any amount personally to the first defendant and he had not obtained any authorisation from the importers for filing the suit which was admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination. He would also argue that each and every claim was made through the receipts on different cause of action and the plaintiff cannot club all the causes of action into one and file the suit. Even in the plaint itself, it is averred that the plaintiff was acting as an agent of the importers and therefore the agent cannot file the suit or be sued personally as per Section 230 of Indian Contract Act. 23. He would also submit that the documents produced by the plaintiff in Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-8 /the pass books would not help the plaintiff and the entries could be related to some other transactions and even in respect of the sister concerns of the plaintiff. Had the ledgers been produced, they would show, as to whether the amount was directly paid by the plaintiff himself or the plaintiff had collected the monies from the importers and thereafter it was paid to the first defendant as per Ex.P-2 series. The plaintiff did not prove that the agency was coupled with interest and therefore the plea of the plaintiff cannot be decided in this suit as his interest was not personally involved in the recovery of money. 24. The plaintiff did not prove that the agency was coupled with interest and therefore the plea of the plaintiff cannot be decided in this suit as his interest was not personally involved in the recovery of money. 24. He would also submit that the plaintiff must succeed or fail on his own case and he cannot take advantage of weakness in the defendants' cases. He would rely upon the judgement of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 2352 (Punjab Urban Planning And Development Authority Vs. M/s. Siva Saraswathy Iron And Steel Re-Rolling Mills) in support of his case. A judgement of the privy Council reported in A.I.R. 1918 PC 35 (Jaganath Pratap Singh Vs. Syed Abdullah and others) for the same proposition that the plaintiff has to prove what he has alleged in his suit. Moreover he would submit in his argument that the plaintiff did not produce the best evidence available with him and therefore the plaintiff has to fail in his case. 25. He would also submit in his argument that as per Section 34 of Evidence Act, the account books maintained in the course of regular business alone would prove the cases filed on accounts, otherwise a suit for accounting alone has to be filed by the plaintiff and therefore the present suit filed for specific amount without producing the account books is not sustainable. He would place the judgement of our Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 426 (Eswardas Jain (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs.Sohanlal (Dead) by L.Rs., A.I.R.1998 SC page 1406 (CBI Vs.V.C.Chuckla and others,) 2001 (2) CTC at page 736,a judgement of this Court in Mettur Beard Sell Limited Vs. M/s.Salem Textiles Limited and 2001 4(CTC) 164 in D.K.T.Alagappan and five others Vs.Vimala Balasubramaniam represented by Power Agent B.Swaminathan in support of his argument. Therefore, he would urge the Court that the mere production of Ex.P-2 series receipts and the statement of accounts in Ex.P-16 will not help the plaintiff in proving his case and the plaintiff had withheld the best evidence namely the ledgers maintained by it and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is liable to the dismissed as not proved. The break up details mentioned in Ex.P-16 were not explained by P.W.1 and therefore no reliance can be placed upon either Ex.P-16 or on Ex.P-2 series of receipts. 26. The break up details mentioned in Ex.P-16 were not explained by P.W.1 and therefore no reliance can be placed upon either Ex.P-16 or on Ex.P-2 series of receipts. 26. The learned counsel for the first defendant would submit in his argument that the plaintiff cannot invoke the provision of Sections 69 and 70 of the Contract Act, since he had acted on behalf of the various importers and therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff without impleading the importers or filed without a representative capacity cannot be maintained. Therefore the suit claim is liable to be dismissed with the cost to the first defendant, as not maintainable. 27. After giving serious and anxious thoughts over the arguments advance on either side, I could see that the transactions had in between the plaintiff and first defendant was not disputed. The admitted facts regarding those transactions are that the plaintiff as the clearing and forwarding agent of several importers had dealt with the first defendant, who acted as the agent of the second defendant in collecting the storage charges for the containers and the security amount for the due return of those containers used in such clearing of imported goods. The case of the plaintiff that he had paid several amounts to the first defendant for the purpose of clearing the goods from foreign vessels with the first defendant as per the tariff mentioned in the notification issued under Ex.P-1, was also not disputed. Similarly the transactions had by the plaintiff with the first defendant by paying several amounts and the cheques issued by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant was also not disputed. It is also not a disputed case that Writ Petitions were filed by various clearing agents for reduction of the tariff mentioned in Ex.P-1 and the second defendant, who was responsible for issuance of Ex.P-1 notification had voluntarily reduced the storage charges of the containers with retrospective effect from 6.7.1994 by issuing Ex.P-9 notification and accordingly, the retrospective effect given under the said notification from 6.7.1994 would make the payers of the container storage charges to the first defendant getting the refund of the excess amount already paid to the first defendant. 28. The actual dispute is whether the amount paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant could be returned by the first defendant directly to the plaintiff itself or to its clients viz. 28. The actual dispute is whether the amount paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant could be returned by the first defendant directly to the plaintiff itself or to its clients viz. the importers on whose behalf the plaintiff had acted and cleared the goods imported by them. The contention of the first defendant would also be that the plaintiff did not plead and prove the actual refund amount liable to be paid by the first defendant to the importers. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to find out as to whether the suit could be maintained by the plaintiff or not. 29. Point No.2: The plaintiff had examined P.W.1 and had produced Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced by the defendants. However, Exs.D1 to D3 were produced by the first defendant. 30. It is no doubt that the plaintiff has to rely upon his own case and he cannot abandon his case and rely upon the weakness in the defendant's case. It is also a settled law that the plaintiff has to discharge the burden of proof in respect of the facts placed by him. Therefore, we have to see whether the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff has succeeded in his attempt to prove his case. Admittedly, there is no contra evidence adduced by the defendants for the oral evidence given by the Managing Director of the plaintiff Company as P.W.1. He would speak in his evidence that the suit has been laid for the refund of the excess amount paid by the plaintiff towards the container storage charges caused due to the issuance of second notification Ex.P-9 by the second defendant, reducing the said tariff for container storage charges. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show the amount paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant towards the container storage charges as per Ex.P-2 series (containing 103 receipts). The said payments were made by the plaintiff only by way of issuing cheques in favour of the first defendant. The further evidence of P.W.1 to that effect that the plaintiff did not obtain any advance from the importers for whom it acted was not disputed by the defendants in the cross examination. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the payments made by the plaintiff through Ex. The further evidence of P.W.1 to that effect that the plaintiff did not obtain any advance from the importers for whom it acted was not disputed by the defendants in the cross examination. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the payments made by the plaintiff through Ex. P-2 series were paid by the plaintiff itself as per the tariff mentioned in Ex.P.1 notification on behalf of its clients viz., the importers. The question of paying and acting of the plaintiff on behalf of the importers was also not disputed. However, the case of the plaintiff would be that since the plaintiff had paid the money from its funds on behalf of the importers, the agency in between the plaintiff and the importers was involved with the interest of the plaintiff and therefore the agency created in between the plaintiff and its clients should be considered as an agency coupled with interest. As already discussed, we could see that the payments were made only by the plaintiff without obtaining any advances from the importers. There is no evidence adduced contra nor any material has been placed by the defendants to show that there was no interest of the plaintiff coupled with the agencies. The insistence of the defendants' Counsel that Ex.P-13 would go to show that the importers had insisted payments from the plaintiff would categorically disprove the claim of the plaintiff cannot be sustained because all the payments as mentioned in Ex.P-2 series were not the cheques issued by the importers but issued by the plaintiff. For the foregoing reasons, this Court could see that the plaintiff had acted on behalf of the importers as per the agency created in between them and the plaintiff had made the payments to the first defendant by issuing various cheques and therefore it could be found that the monies of the plaintiff were paid initially by the plaintiff and the interest has been created in favour of the plaintiff in the agency. Therefore, the said agency cannot be terminated without the interest of the plaintiff in the agency has been terminated. 31. The judgement of our Apex Court reported in ( 2006 (1) SCC 442 (Tashi Delek Gaming Solution Limited and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others) is squarely applicable to this case. The relevant passage would run as follows: "Right to Sue:-26. 31. The judgement of our Apex Court reported in ( 2006 (1) SCC 442 (Tashi Delek Gaming Solution Limited and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others) is squarely applicable to this case. The relevant passage would run as follows: "Right to Sue:-26. An agent coupled with interest has a right to sue. He may in certain situations be sued as regards his own liabilities independent of his principal. 27. The right of an agent having interest to sue or be sued in its own name came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Subrahmania Pattar V.Narayanan Nayar wherein it was held: (ILR pp.134-35)" "It was argued before us that by the document in question the plaintiff became an agent with interest, and that he, therefore, had a right to sue in his own name and Williams V.Millington; Robinson v.Rutter; Gray V. Pearson and other cases and textbooks were cited in support of this proposition, and Pestanji Mancharji Wadia V. Matchett was also cited as a further authority for the same proposition. The proposition as stated is in our judgment too wide. In Williams v.Millington and Robinson V. Rutter the agents who were held entitled to sue were agents who had made the contract with the defendant as auctioneers, and it was held that, though they had contracted as agents having an interest, they were entitled to sue in their own names. In Gray V. Pearson the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. There, there was no contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff was merely the manager for others and the words used by Willes, J., in his judgment, to which our attention was called, do not assist the plaintiff’s contention. He says the proper person to bring the action is the person whose right has been violated. Though there are certain exceptions to the general rule, for instance, in the case of agents, auctioneers or factors, these exceptions are in truth more apparent than real, &c. The real proposition of law, which these and other cases establish, is that where an agent enters into a contract as such, if he has interest in the contract, he may sue in his own name." 32. Since the plaintiff is found to be an agent coupled with interest and he is entitled to sue against the defendants there is no necessity of impleadment of all the importers for the purpose of claiming the relief mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, the bar of an agent to file any suit against any person liable to pay by either to the agent or to the principal under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be applied to the present case. Similarly, the plaintiff need not file the suit under the representative capacity on behalf of the importers under Order I Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, this Court finds that the suit filed by the plaintiff is in order and there is no necessity for impleading all the importers and therefore, the suit is not hit by the importers for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff. 33. It was also contended that the first defendant was the agent of foreign vessels and the suit dealings were done by the first defendant for the purpose of clearing the goods from the foreign vessels and he cannot be sued under section 230 of Indian Contract Act. Section 230 of Indian Contract Act would run as follows: "230. Agent cannot personally enforce, nor be bound by contracts on behalf of principal.-- In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them. Presumption of contract to contrary.-- Such a contract shall be presumed to exist in the following cases:-- (1) where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad; (2) where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal; (3) where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued." 34. The first defendant did not adduce any evidence on his side as to the nexus of the transactions with that of the foreign vessels. Moreover, the suit has been filed for the excess amount of tariff paid towards the container storage charges as per Ex.P-1 notification which was caused by Ex.P-9 notification reducing the tariff charges. Admittedly, the containers are belonging to the first defendant which were given to the plaintiff on payment of security deposits. Moreover, the suit has been filed for the excess amount of tariff paid towards the container storage charges as per Ex.P-1 notification which was caused by Ex.P-9 notification reducing the tariff charges. Admittedly, the containers are belonging to the first defendant which were given to the plaintiff on payment of security deposits. The said storage charges were collected by the second defendant for the purpose of handling those containers at the time of clearing the imported goods. The claim of the plaintiff was made on the basis of the tariff mentioned in Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-9 notifications towards container storage charges which would not cover the liability of any foreign vessel. The contract is only in between the first defendant and the plaintiff in respect of payment of security deposit for those containers and the prompt return of those containers after the purpose is over and in between the plaintiff and the second defendant through the first defendant as the agent of second defendant for payment of container storage charges. Therefore, there was no privity of contract in between the plaintiff and the alleged foreign principals viz., foreign vessels. Therefore, the invocation of Section 230 of Indian Contract Act is not available for benefiting the first defendant in respect of the suit transactions. Accordingly, the issue No.2 is decided against the first defendant. 35. Issue No.1 and 3: The claim of the plaintiff towards the refund of excess storage charges caused by the notification issued under Ex.P-9 was for a sum of Rs.11,82,531.80 with interest at 24% per annum from 6.7.1995, the date of Ex.P-9 till the date of realisation. According to the plaintiff that he has paid the said sum of Rs.11,82,531.80 which is an excess amount as per Ex.P-16 statement of accounts. According to him, Ex.P-16 was supported by the receipts issued by the first defendant in Ex.P-2 series numbering 103. P.W.1 would depose in his evidence that the receipts in Ex.P-2 series were in respect of different vessels which dispatched the Cargo sent on various dates. His evidence would also show that the container storage charges collected by the first defendant from the plaintiff were none other than the detention charges referred to in Ex.P-2 series. There is no contra evidence adduced on the side of the first defendant to show that the container storage charges are different from the detention charges mentioned in Ex.P-2 series. His evidence would also show that the container storage charges collected by the first defendant from the plaintiff were none other than the detention charges referred to in Ex.P-2 series. There is no contra evidence adduced on the side of the first defendant to show that the container storage charges are different from the detention charges mentioned in Ex.P-2 series. It is not the case of the first defendant who received the payments mentioned in Ex. P-2 series, for some other purpose except container storage charges. In these circumstances, the charges collected by the first defendant from the plaintiff by way of Ex.P-2 series receipts were meant only for container storage charges. 36. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the first defendant that the plaintiff ought to have produced the ledgers kept by him in the course of his business in the name of the first defendant otherwise the suit transactions cannot be deemed as proved as per Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act. The judgment cited on behalf of the first defendant reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 426 (Ishwar DassJain (dead) through L.Rs., Vs. Sohan Lal (dead) by L.Rs.) would run as follows: "23. .......It will be noticed that sanctity is attached in the law of evidence to books of account if the books are indeed account books i.e. in original and if they show, on their face, that they are kept in the “regular course of business". Such sanctity, in our opinion, cannot attach to private extracts or alleged account books where the original accounts are not filed into Court. This is because, from the extracts, it cannot be discovered whether accounts are kept in the regular course of business or if there are any interpolations or whether the interpolations are in a different ink or whether the accounts are in the form of a book with continuous page numbering. Hence, if the original books have not been produced, it is not possible to know whether the entries relating to payment of rent are entries made in the regular course of business. 24. It is only in the case of Bankers' Books Evidence Act,1891 that certified copies are allowed or the case must come under section 65(f) or (g) of the Evidence Act. 24. It is only in the case of Bankers' Books Evidence Act,1891 that certified copies are allowed or the case must come under section 65(f) or (g) of the Evidence Act. Private extracts of accounts in other cases can only be secondary evidence and unless a proper foundation is laid for adducing such secondary evidence under Section 66 or other provisions of the Evidence Act, the privately handwritten copies of alleged account books cannot by themselves be treated as secondary evidence." 37. Similarly, the judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC 1406 (Central Bureau of Investigation, Appellant V. V.C. Shukla and others) would run as follows for the same proposition: "34......Since, however, an element of self interest and partisanship of the entrant to make a person - behind whose back and without whose knowledge the entry is made – liable cannot be ruled out the additional safeguard of insistence upon other independent evidence to fasten him with such liability, has been provided for in Section 34 by incorporating the words 'such statements shall not alone be sufficient to charge any person with liability'." 38. Further, the judgment reported in 2001(4) CTC 164 (TKT. Alagappan and 5 others Vs. Vimala Balasubramanian rep.by Power Agent B.Swaminathan No.2/54 East Raja St., Pudukottai-1) for the same principle. 39. On a careful reading of those judgements, we could easily find out that the suit filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the accounts could be proved only by production of the account books maintained by the plaintiff against the said account. No doubt the plaintiff has produced Ex.P-2 series and Ex.P-16 the statement of accounts as per Ex.P-2 series receipts. The evidence of P.W.1 would go a long way to show that he did not maintain any account in the name of the first defendant. However, it was admitted by P.W.1 that they had maintained the ledgers in the names of the importers separately for the transactions had with them. The said evidence of P.W.1 was not disputed by any other material nor by any contra evidence. The plaintiff did not admit in his evidence that the plaintiff was maintaining a proper account book in the name of the first defendant and outstanding payable by the first defendant could be evidenced through the said account book or ledger. The said evidence of P.W.1 was not disputed by any other material nor by any contra evidence. The plaintiff did not admit in his evidence that the plaintiff was maintaining a proper account book in the name of the first defendant and outstanding payable by the first defendant could be evidenced through the said account book or ledger. Therefore, the judgements mentioned above to the effect that the suit filed on the balance amount could be proved only by production of the accounts maintained by the plaintiff against the first defendant cannot be sustained. The statement of accounts produced in Ex.P-16 was produced by the plaintiff giving the particulars of calculation by showing the difference amount payable by the first defendant due to the effect caused by the second notification Ex.P-9. It is not an extract of ledger account maintained by the plaintiff against the first defendant. The tenor of the judgements referred above would go to show that the statement of accounts could be considered as secondary evidence in the place of the ledgers maintained by the plaintiff and, therefore, without any explanation for non-production of the said ledgers the statement of accounts cannot be admitted in evidence. Here is a case, the nomenclature of Ex.P-16 was referred as statement of accounts even though it is the statement of calculation of difference amount paid excess by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant caused due to the enforcement of the subsequent notification Ex.P-9, reducing the tariff with retrospective effect from 6.7.1994. Therefore, the facts of the cases dealt with in the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court are not similar to the facts of this case. 40. Admittedly, the said payments were made through Ex.P-2 receipts by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant towards container storage charges. There is no reference in the said receipts in respect of the security deposits amount paid by the plaintiff which are yet to be returned. The evidence of the plaintiff would go to show that the first defendant is liable to repay the excess tariff received by him to the plaintiff as per the subsequent notification Ex.P-9. There is no reference in the said receipts in respect of the security deposits amount paid by the plaintiff which are yet to be returned. The evidence of the plaintiff would go to show that the first defendant is liable to repay the excess tariff received by him to the plaintiff as per the subsequent notification Ex.P-9. The calculation has been done after showing the payments made as per tariff mentioned in Ex.P-1 in the first column and the actual amount payable under the subsequent notification Ex.P-9 is shown in the middle column and the last column would show the excess amount paid towards the container storage charges which are liable to be returned by the first defendant to the plaintiff. The said statement of accounts (which is actually the statement of calculation as per Ex.P-2 series) was not challenged through any contra evidence adduced on the side of the defendants. There is no dispute that the second defendant had reduced the tariff for the container storage charges with retrospective effect as per Ex.P-9. Indisputably the first notification showing the tariff on a higher rate in Ex.P-1 was questioned on behalf of various clearing and forwarding agents by the way of filing Writ Petitions before this Court and the appeal proceedings are still pending. However, the second defendant had itself reduced the tariff charges as mentioned in Ex.P-1 notification with retrospective effect from 6.7.1994 by issuing Ex.P-9 notification. Therefore, the pendency of the Writ proceedings will not in any way hinder the claim of the refund of the excess amount paid by the plaintiff as per Ex.P-1 notification with the effect of Ex.P-9 notification. When the amount paid by the first plaintiff to the first defendant through Ex.p-2 series, receipts and the plaintiff or his principals viz., importers, are entitled to get the refund of the said tariff found excess due to Ex.P-9 notification should have been returned. The doctrine of unjust enrichment would also apply to the present case. When the second defendant had issued notification reducing the tariff charges with retrospective effect, what were all the payments made by the plaintiff, covered by the notification issued under Ex.P-9 should not have been retained by the first defendant who acted on behalf of the second defendant. The doctrine of unjust enrichment would also apply to the present case. When the second defendant had issued notification reducing the tariff charges with retrospective effect, what were all the payments made by the plaintiff, covered by the notification issued under Ex.P-9 should not have been retained by the first defendant who acted on behalf of the second defendant. If the first defendant had retained the said amount without paying it to the plaintiff as per the difference of tariffs in between Ex.P-1 and Ex. P-9 notifications, which would certainly amount to unjust enrichment. 41. The learned counsel for the first defendant would urge in his argument that the burden of payment had been with the importers only and if the amount is ordered to be paid by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff, it cannot be the actual restoration of the excess amount and the plaintiff would be a person unlawfully enriched by getting his claim. He had cited the judgement of the Apex Court reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 50 (S.C.) (Union of India Vs. Raj Industries) to that effect. The relevant passage would run as follows: "8....... But even if that was so found as ultimately seen in the present appeal, further question would still survive whether the refund could have been ordered to the respondents by the impugned order if the burden of duty was already passed on to the purchasers from the respondents. As that has not been examined by the High Court the decision of the learned Single Judge directing refund of the whole amount and as confirmed by the Division Bench requires to be set aside only on this limited ground. Thus, while upholding the plea of the respondents that the disputed import duty paid by it was not legally payable, still the question survives for consideration as to whether refund could have been ordered to it if the burden of duty was passed on to third parties......" 42. Thus, while upholding the plea of the respondents that the disputed import duty paid by it was not legally payable, still the question survives for consideration as to whether refund could have been ordered to it if the burden of duty was passed on to third parties......" 42. On a careful reading of the judgement we could see that there was a suit filed by the plaintiff for return of the excess duty paid to the Government and it was found that the duty asked for by the plaintiff had already been passed on the third parties and the third parties had burdened those excess duties and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be considered as illegal but only as an unlawful enrichment. So far as this case is concerned, the plaintiff had actually paid the amount who was seeking for the refund of the payments made by him in excess of the tariff which was admittedly reduced by the second defendant with retrospective effect. There is no dispute that the plaintiff acted on behalf of the importers. We have already discussed and come to the conclusion that the role of the plaintiff is an agent coupled with interest. Therefore, it cannot be decided that the plaintiff is not the actual person entitled for the payment of excess amount. The cause of action for the repayment of the said amount payable by the plaintiff to its principals (ie) importers would be arising only after passing of any order by this Court. Therefore, the vanishing of burden due to passing such burden to third parties for the repayment of duty in the case discussed in the aforesaid judgement is not applicable here and therefore, the said facts of the case discussed in the said judgement do not apply to the present case. 43. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that the plaintiff is maintaining accounts in the names of importers. Since, we have already come to a conclusion that the agency in between the plaintiff and the importers was coupled with the interest, the plaintiff is always under the liability to repay the said amount to the importers only after ordering the excess amount payable by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Since, we have already come to a conclusion that the agency in between the plaintiff and the importers was coupled with the interest, the plaintiff is always under the liability to repay the said amount to the importers only after ordering the excess amount payable by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. If for any reason the first defendant is found not liable to pay the excess amount, the said contingency would alone amount to unlawful enrichment but not the said circumstance as submitted by the learned counsel for the first defendant. Therefore, it could be safely concluded that the first defendant is liable to repay the excess amount payable as per the reduction of tariff in Ex.P-9 for the 103 receipts in Ex.P-2 to which the payments were made towards the container storage charges as per the calculation made in Ex.P-16 as there was no contra evidence showing the calculation of excess amount as per Ex.P-16 is against Ex.P-9. Even though the payments made by the plaintiff through Ex. P-2 series on various dates to the first defendant, all these cause of actions will not make the suit unsustainable. The cause of actions of all the 103 receipts are similar and are in between the same parties and therefore there is no question of any mixing of cause of action. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 is illegally sustainable. 44. The plaintiff's claim is mainly depending upon Ex.P2 the series numbering about 103 receipts issued by the first defendant for the payment of container storage charges. The said receipts were said to have been listed in Ex.P-16. The statement of accounts showing the outstanding amount payable by the first defendant to the plaintiff. According to Ex.P-16, a sum of Rs.11,82,531.80 is shown as the difference amount to be returned by the first defendant in view of the enforcement of the subsequent notification issued by the second defendant in Ex.P-9. In the said statement of account Ex.P-16 the amount actually paid is shown in fourth column against the respective bills and the actual charges to be paid by the plaintiff as per the subsequent notification Ex.P-9 is shown in fifth Column and the difference amount to be repaid by the first defendant to the plaintiff are shown in sixth column respectively. The said statement of account was produced by P.W.1 and was admitted in evidence subject to the objection raised by the first defendant. It is an admitted fact that the container storage charges were reduced by the second defendant for the transactions had from 6.7.1994 respectively. The difference amount shown in fifth column of Ex.P-16 would result in the payment of the amount to be repaid by the first defendant as per the said Government order. As already discussed there is no contra evidence adduced in respect of the said calculation of the actual charges shown in fifth column of Ex.P-16 by the defendants. Therefore, the objection raised by the defendant at the time of admitting the said document Ex.P-16 in evidence is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the mode of calculation made by the plaintiff in support of the 103 receipts produced as Ex.P-2 series is maintainable. However, on careful scrutiny of those Ex.P-2 series receipts with the statement of accounts Ex.P-16, we could find that there are six wrong entries. In Serial No.5 of Ex.P-16 a sum of Rs.24,715/- was ordered to the said bill of Rs.35,000/- for which no separate receipt was produced. Therefore, the payment of Rs.24,715/- cannot be taken as proved and the said sum has to be reduced against the sum of Rs.41,065/- shown in the corresponding sixth column for the return of the amount. Similarly, the bill bearing No.006117 shown in Sl. No.47, the bill bearing No.006149 in Sl.No.51, the bill bearing No.006380 in Sl.No.53, the bill mentioned in Sl.Nos.69 and 70 were not found available in Ex.P-2 series. The remaining bills numbering 103 are corresponding to the receipts mentioned in Ex.P-2 series. The plaintiff did not produce any evidence to show that he had paid the sums mentioned in Ex.P-16 corresponding to those six bills to the first defendant. In these circumstances, those payments said to have been made to the first defendant as per those entries are not repayable by the first defendant as referred in the corresponding sixth column of Ex.P-16. 45. The security deposits for the containers said to have paid by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant was not disputed. In these circumstances, those payments said to have been made to the first defendant as per those entries are not repayable by the first defendant as referred in the corresponding sixth column of Ex.P-16. 45. The security deposits for the containers said to have paid by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant was not disputed. The only contention raised by the first defendant was that they have received the cheques from the plaintiff as security for the return of the containers and they did not encash the cheques and return them after the containers were returned by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff had not shown in the statement of account or through any other document for the due issuance of the cheques to the first defendant towards the security of containers and they were encashed by the first defendant, but they were not returned even after the containers were handed over to the defendants. The pass books produced by the plaintiff as Exs.P-3 to Ex.P-8 would go to show the various transactions had by the plaintiff with the clients as well as the first defendant. There is no specific pleading as well as the evidence to quantify the amount payable by the first defendant towards the return of security deposit. 46. Therefore, it has become necessary to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,93,131.80 as per Ex.P-16. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff. 47.Issue No.4: As regards the payment of interest for the outstanding amount, there is no contract of payment in between the parties. The liability to pay the amount is purely arising out of the finding of this Court. There is no dispute that the excess amount payable to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant was retained by the first defendant. It was very much known to the 1st defendant that he was liable to refund the excess amount received by him from the 1st defendant towards container storage charges for the suit transactions on the date of issue of the second notification Ex.P-9 by second defendant. Even though the transaction amounting to commercial, it is only an amount to be refunded by the first defendant to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the claim of 24% interest from the date of plaint till the date of realisation is found to be excess. Even though the transaction amounting to commercial, it is only an amount to be refunded by the first defendant to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the claim of 24% interest from the date of plaint till the date of realisation is found to be excess. As per the dictum of our Apex Court, the rate of interest should have been fixed as per the prevalence of interest rate of lending of loans and giving for deposits by the Nationalised Banks. There is no evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff in that aspect. Therefore, this Court on consideration of the period of transactions had during 1994 had fixed the interest rate at 12% per annum for the outstanding amount payable by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore a sum of Rs.338870.86 only is payable towards interest calculated at 12% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs.1093131.80 from 6.7.1995 to 6.2.1998. (i.e.) from the date of Ex.P.9 till the date of the suit. Accordingly, these issues are decided. 48. Issue No.6: In view of the findings reached in all the issues, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.14,32,002.66 with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.10,93,131.80 from the date of plaint till the date of realisation with proportionate cost. 49. In fine, the suit is decreed for Rs.14,32,002.66 with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation on Rs.10,93,131.80 with proportionate costs.