Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.44 seconds)
M/S. Ntpc Ltd vs M.P. State Electiricity Board & Ors on 29 September, 2011 cites

Union Of India vs A.L. Rallia Ram on 19 April, 1963

Our attention has been drawn to the industry practice which also shows that on all such occasions interest has never been either demanded or paid when the price fixation takes place. As held by us hereinabove, claim for interest could not be covered under Section 62 (6). The provision for interest has been introduced by regulations subsequent to the period which was under consideration before the Commission. If we apply the propositions in Rallia Ram (supra) and Watkins Mayor (supra), we find that the terms of the supply agreement, the governing regulation and notifications did not contain any provision for interest. The industry practice did not provide for it as well. In view thereof, interest could not be claimed either on the basis of equity or on the basis of restitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 404 - J C Shah - Full Document

Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited vs Ruttanji Ramji on 20 December, 1937

(c) terminal tax, (d) cartage, (e) unloading charges, (f) cooliage and (g) interest. This Court accepted the claim of the plaintiff with regards to items (a) to (f) but rejected the claim with respect to interest. The Court relied upon the observations of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Vs. Ruttanji Ramji (supra) to the following effect :-
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 256 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next