Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.82 seconds)Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd vs G. Harischandra Reddy And Anr on 10 January, 2007
10.4 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down that the
interest should not be awarded at unreasonably high rate and it
should not be excessive. In the present case the defendants
even before issuance of summons had made the payment of
principal amount to the plaintiff for which plaintiff has got the suit
amended only for the interest amount. The legal notice dated
01.09.2011 Mark C was issued to the defendants to pay the
amount within seven days. The suit was filed on 02.07.2012. In
the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is held entitled to
Suit No.613455/16
M/s. Smat Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 10 of 21
interest for the period and at such rate which was wrongfully
withheld by the defendants in view of citation titled M/s. Sangat
Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Wimpy International Ltd. on 17 January, 2012
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No.657/2003
which is as follows:
"6. Though, learned counsel for the
respondent/defendant has not argued one aspect
with respect to the interest, I however feel in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the
appellant/plaintiff ought not to be granted interest at
24% per annum for the presuit period and at 18%
per annum pendente lite and future as claimed by
the appellant/plaintiff. I may note that the Supreme
Court in the recent catena of judgments reported as
Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing
& Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6)
SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn
Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181,
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.
Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna
Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2)
SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete
Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has
held that the Courts should be alive to the change of
interest regime, and Courts should reduce the
unnecessary high rates of interest, especially
considering the long pendency of litigation.
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S. Ferro Concrete Construction ... on 22 April, 2009
10.4 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down that the
interest should not be awarded at unreasonably high rate and it
should not be excessive. In the present case the defendants
even before issuance of summons had made the payment of
principal amount to the plaintiff for which plaintiff has got the suit
amended only for the interest amount. The legal notice dated
01.09.2011 Mark C was issued to the defendants to pay the
amount within seven days. The suit was filed on 02.07.2012. In
the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is held entitled to
Suit No.613455/16
M/s. Smat Forms Vs. Integrated Diseases Surveillance Project (IDSP) & Ors. Page 10 of 21
interest for the period and at such rate which was wrongfully
withheld by the defendants in view of citation titled M/s. Sangat
Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Wimpy International Ltd. on 17 January, 2012
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No.657/2003
which is as follows:
"6. Though, learned counsel for the
respondent/defendant has not argued one aspect
with respect to the interest, I however feel in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the
appellant/plaintiff ought not to be granted interest at
24% per annum for the presuit period and at 18%
per annum pendente lite and future as claimed by
the appellant/plaintiff. I may note that the Supreme
Court in the recent catena of judgments reported as
Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing
& Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6)
SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn
Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181,
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.
Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna
Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2)
SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete
Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has
held that the Courts should be alive to the change of
interest regime, and Courts should reduce the
unnecessary high rates of interest, especially
considering the long pendency of litigation.
M/S. Pandit Munshi Ram & Associates ... vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 11 August, 2000
A
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Pandit Munshi Ram Associates vs. DDA 2010 (9)
AD (Delhi) 313, has also held that the rate of interest
for the presuit period, if the same is unnecessarily
excessive, is violative of public policy."
State Bank Of India vs Shri Umanath Ganpat Nadkarni And Others on 9 April, 1999
10.5 It is own case of the plaintiff that he has received
Rs.4,70,657/ from the defendants on 13.06.2012. The suit was
filed on 02.07.2012. No rate of interest is mentioned over invoice
filed on record. Hence the plaintiff is held entitled to interest only
for the period due since the 15 days thereafter from the receipt of
invoice. The nature of transaction was commercial between the
parties. Hence keeping in view the lower rate of interest since last
few years the plaintiff is held entitled to presuit interest against
the defendants @ 6 % p.a. The plaintiff is also held entitled to
pendente lite of future interest on due amount at the same rate.
However it is against public policy to grant interest on interest.
The relevant citation is reproduced here as under :
"State Bank Of India vs Shri Umanath Ganpat
Nadkarni And ... on 9 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 (3) BomCR 696
Rajendra Construction Company vs Maharashtra Housing & Area Development ... on 12 August, 2005
In Union Bank of India v. M/s. Noor Dairy Farm
and others (supra), the learned Single Judge of this
Court has held that the Supreme Court has
observed in the case of Corporation Bank v. D.S.
Gowda and another (supra), that in the case of
agricultural loan the bank cannot charge compound
interest at 3 months or half yearly rests. It was
further held that in view of the said decision of the
Apex Court, it is not permissible for the Banks to
charge interest at halfyearly rests in case of
agricultural loans and in such cases there is no
scope for claiming compound interest with periodical
rests.
Corporation Bank vs D.S. Godwa on 20 June, 1994
In Union Bank of India v. M/s. Noor Dairy Farm
and others (supra), the learned Single Judge of this
Court has held that the Supreme Court has
observed in the case of Corporation Bank v. D.S.
Gowda and another (supra), that in the case of
agricultural loan the bank cannot charge compound
interest at 3 months or half yearly rests. It was
further held that in view of the said decision of the
Apex Court, it is not permissible for the Banks to
charge interest at halfyearly rests in case of
agricultural loans and in such cases there is no
scope for claiming compound interest with periodical
rests.
Shri Mahadev Rama Bhonsle & Others vs Central Bank Of India & Another on 5 October, 1996
20. As regards the third question, it is clearly
covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the matter of Mahadeo Rama Bhonsle and
others v. Central Bank of India and another (supra).
It has been clearly held therein that the amount of
interest is to be calculated on the principal sum
only and not the principal sum plus the interest
accrued till the filing of the suit. The decree as far
as it awards the interest on the total sum of Rs.
1,03,088/ which includes interest on the amount till
the date of filing of the suit has to be modified so as
to restrict the same to the principal sum of Rs.
95,000/ only. In other words, the appellant shall be
entitled for interest at the rate of 15.5% per annum
for a period from 3061992 till 23111992 on the
total sum of Rs. 95,000/."