Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957
Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors vs Uoi & Anr on 14 May, 2009
23. The above position is reiterated in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors.
v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 3098 where the Supreme Court held
as under:
C.K.Sasankan vs Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd on 27 February, 2009
In C.K. Sasankan v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited (2009) 11 SCC 60,
the Supreme Court further held:
Clariant International Ltd. & Anr vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India on 25 August, 2004
14. We are inclined to refer to the decision
in Clariant International Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange
Board of India, where it was held by this Court that the
interest can be awarded in terms of an agreement or
statutory provisions and it can also be awarded by
reason of usage or trade having the force of law or on
equitable considerations but the same cannot be
awarded by way of damages except in cases where
money due is wrongfully withheld and there are
equitable grounds therefore, for which a written
demand is mandatory. It was further held that in
absence of any agreement or statutory provision or a
mercantile usage, interest payable can be only at the
market rate and such interest is payable upon
establishment of totality of circumstances justifying
exercise of such equitable jurisdiction. It was also held
that in ascertaining the rate of interest the Courts of
law can take judicial notice of both inflation as also
fall in bank rate of interest. The bank rate of interest
both for commercial purposes and other purposes has
been the subject-matter of statutory provisions as also
the judge-made laws.
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
In the said case reference was
made to the decisions in Kaushnuma Begum v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., H.S. Ahammed Hussain v.
Irfan Ahammed and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Patricia Jean Mahajan and it was observed that even
in cases of victims of motor vehicle accidents, the
Courts have upon taking note of the fall in the rate of
interest held 9% interest to be reasonable. Direction to
pay such rate of interest is also found to be reasonable
and fair as the Plaintiff was deprived to utilize and roll
its money in commercial transaction and kept out of it
RFA Nos. 754/2016 & 771/2016 Page 20 of 22
due to wrongful withholding of the same by the
Defendant.
H.S.Ahammed Hussain & Anr vs Irfan Ahammed & Anr on 9 July, 2002
In the said case reference was
made to the decisions in Kaushnuma Begum v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., H.S. Ahammed Hussain v.
Irfan Ahammed and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Patricia Jean Mahajan and it was observed that even
in cases of victims of motor vehicle accidents, the
Courts have upon taking note of the fall in the rate of
interest held 9% interest to be reasonable. Direction to
pay such rate of interest is also found to be reasonable
and fair as the Plaintiff was deprived to utilize and roll
its money in commercial transaction and kept out of it
RFA Nos. 754/2016 & 771/2016 Page 20 of 22
due to wrongful withholding of the same by the
Defendant.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Patrica Jean Mahajan And Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 July, 2002
In the said case reference was
made to the decisions in Kaushnuma Begum v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., H.S. Ahammed Hussain v.
Irfan Ahammed and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Patricia Jean Mahajan and it was observed that even
in cases of victims of motor vehicle accidents, the
Courts have upon taking note of the fall in the rate of
interest held 9% interest to be reasonable. Direction to
pay such rate of interest is also found to be reasonable
and fair as the Plaintiff was deprived to utilize and roll
its money in commercial transaction and kept out of it
RFA Nos. 754/2016 & 771/2016 Page 20 of 22
due to wrongful withholding of the same by the
Defendant.
United Bank Of India vs Rashyan Udyog And Others, Etc. on 12 April, 1989
In Union Bank of India v. Rashyan Udyog and Ors AIR 1990 Cal
146 relied upon by the DDA, the Court notices that when the Trial Court
does not apply its mind to the question of interest and has not awarded
interest by the exercise of discretion, interest is liable to be granted.