Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Prashant Kumar Shahi vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 3 April, 2000

Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 17 March, 2004

There can be no dispute to the principles laid down in Prashant Kumar Shahi's case and Bihar State Housing Board's case (supra). It is on these principles that it is already held that awaring interest at a flat rate of 18% is not justified. It is clear that in all these cases interest is being awarded as and by way of compensation/damages. Whilst so awarding it must be shown that there is relationship between the amount awarded and the default/unjustifiable delay/harassment. It is thus necessary that there be separate awards under each such head with reasons why such award is justified. However, the principles that interest must be granted at the current rate of interest is only applicable where the proceeding are for recovery of debt or damages. They apply where a refund of amount is being claimed and the direction is to refund amounts with interest. The principles which govern grant of interest do not apply to grant of compensation. For this reason also it becomes necessary to consider facts and award damage/compensation under various heads.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 1208 - Full Document

Punjab Urban Planning & Development ... vs Gulshan Rai on 20 May, 2013

Whether a defaulting allottee of a public housing authority can legally be permitted by the consumer fora to lay the consequences of his own action/inaction at the door of the public housing authority contrary to the ratio of the Honble Supreme Courts judgment, inter alia, in Prashant Kumar Shahi Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority (2000) 4 SCC 120 ; Ghaziabad Development Authority VS. Balbir Singh (2005) 9 SCC 573 and Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711 ?
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next