Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.38 seconds)Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of Orissa vs B.N. Agarwala on 24 November, 1992
Mr. Tulzapurkar, however, brought to my notice that in a subsequent judgment by two Judges of the Supreme Court in (State of Orissa v. B. N. Agarwala ), it has clearly laid down that the judgment in G. C. Roy's case was confined to the power of the Arbitrator to award interest pendente lite. It did not pertain to nor it did pronounce upon the power of the arbitrator to award interest for the period prior to his entering upon the reference.
Jugal Kishore Prabhatilal Sharma And ... vs Vijayendra Prabhatilal Sharma And Anr on 22 October, 1992
"The decision in G. C. Roy was concerned only with the power of arbitrator to award interest pendente lite. It was not concerned with his power to award interest for the pre-reference period." "In the circumstances, it would not be correct to read the first of the five principles set out in para 43 as overruling Jena insofar as is dealt with the arbitrator's power to award interest for the pre-reference period. Principle No. (1) should be read along with principle No. (v) wherein it is clearly stated that the interest for the period anterior to the reference (pre-reference period) is a matter of substantive law unlike interest pendente lite. The conclusion in para 44 again deals only with the power of the arbitrator to award interest pendente lite. It is, therefore not right to read the said decision as overruling Jena in so far as it dealt with the power of the arbitrator to award interest for the pre-reference period."
Bengal Nagpur Ry. Co. Ltd. vs Ruttanji Ramji And Ors. on 23 May, 1934
"There remains the question of interest. Interest for a period prior to the commencement of suit's claimable either under a statutory provision or under the Interest Act, for a sum certain where notice is given. Interest is also awarded in some case cases by courts of equity. Bengal Nagpur Ry. Co. Ltd. v. Rattanji Ramji . In the present case no agreement about interest was made, nor was it implied. The notice which was given did not specify the sum which was demanded, and, therefore, the Interest Act does not, apply. The present case does not fall within those cases in which courts of equity grant interest. Learned Counsel for Durga Datta claimed interest as damages; but it is well-settled that interest as damages cannot be awarded. Interest upto date of suit, therefore, was not claimable, and a deduction shall be made of such interest from the amount decreed. As regards pendente lite until the date of realisation, such interest was within the discretion of the court.
Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited vs Ruttanji Ramji on 20 December, 1937
In Abhaduta Jena's case (supra) the Supreme Court in Bengal specifically referred to the judgment of the Privy Council in Bengal Nagpur Railways Co.'s case (supra) and while dealing with the said judgment, the Supreme Court has considered the situations where the Courts in India can grant interest for pre-ference period on equitable grounds, which is clear from the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 7 of judgment in Abhaduata Jena's case (supra).