Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 46 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Interest Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Varinder Jeet Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Anr. on 31 January, 2013
In the case of Varinder Jeet Singh Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi & Anr., 2013 (134) DRJ 284, Hon'ble Ms. Justice
Hima Kohli interalia held that :
"15. It is settled law that if a person is deprived of
the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled,
he has a right to be monetarily compensated for the
said deprivation.
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
[Ref: (1992) 1 SCC 508: Secretary,
Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy; (2004)
5 SCC 65 : Ghaziabad Development Authority v.
Balbir Singh, and (2009) 8 SCC 507 : Sri
Venkateswara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. and Anr.] The object behind awarding
interest to a party, who has suffered loss, due to a
legitimate deprivation of the enjoyment of the use of
money that he was entitled to rightfully, is to balance
the equities and while doing so, the facts involved in
each case must be examined by the Court.
M/S Jagbir Singh Sharma vs Mcd & Ors on 20 November, 2008
In terms of
Section 46 of Indian Contract Act and as per the law laid in the cases of
Jagbir Singh Sharma (supra) and Ramkesh (supra), when there is no
time limit specified, the engagement must be performed within a
reasonable time. Notices of demand for payments of works done and
security, interest of date 22.05.2015 and 14.09.2015 Ex PW1/2 (Colly)
were served upon defendants on 25.05.2015 and 18.09.2015, respectively,
which date was much later to passing of any reasonable time from
completion of works in question. The works in question were to be
performed in three months of the award of work and these work orders
CS17616/2016
Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 22 of 26
were performed within the stipulated/expended time of completion and
said fact was not denied by defendants in written statement. There was
no legitimate premise with defendants to withhold the legitimate sums of
plaintiff contractor admitted to be payable by defendants Corporation for
the works done or the security/earnest money.
Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 24 August, 2009
16. The statutory provisions with regard to
payment of interest are laid down in Section 3 of the
Interest Act, 1978, that provides that in any
proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages
or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in
respect of any debt or damages already paid is made,
the court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the
person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person
making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not
exceeding the current rate of interest, if the
proceedings do not relate to a debt payable by virtue
of a written instrument at a certain time, from the date
mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by
the person entitled or the person making the claim to
the person liable, then interest will be claimed, till the
date of institution of the proceedings."
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 17 March, 2004
[Ref: (1992) 1 SCC 508: Secretary,
Irrigation Deptt. Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy; (2004)
5 SCC 65 : Ghaziabad Development Authority v.
Balbir Singh, and (2009) 8 SCC 507 : Sri
Venkateswara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. and Anr.] The object behind awarding
interest to a party, who has suffered loss, due to a
legitimate deprivation of the enjoyment of the use of
money that he was entitled to rightfully, is to balance
the equities and while doing so, the facts involved in
each case must be examined by the Court.
Sh. Ramkesh Meena vs Mcd And Others on 2 April, 2009
In terms of
Section 46 of Indian Contract Act and as per the law laid in the cases of
Jagbir Singh Sharma (supra) and Ramkesh (supra), when there is no
time limit specified, the engagement must be performed within a
reasonable time. Notices of demand for payments of works done and
security, interest of date 22.05.2015 and 14.09.2015 Ex PW1/2 (Colly)
were served upon defendants on 25.05.2015 and 18.09.2015, respectively,
which date was much later to passing of any reasonable time from
completion of works in question. The works in question were to be
performed in three months of the award of work and these work orders
CS17616/2016
Sh. Munish Anand Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Page 22 of 26
were performed within the stipulated/expended time of completion and
said fact was not denied by defendants in written statement. There was
no legitimate premise with defendants to withhold the legitimate sums of
plaintiff contractor admitted to be payable by defendants Corporation for
the works done or the security/earnest money.