Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Smt. Violet Issac And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 February, 1991
Similar view was taken in the case of SMT. VIOLET ISSAC AND OTHERS
VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, 1991 (1) SCC 725.
Jodh Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 October, 1980
The Court had also
referred to the decision in the case of JODH SINGH VS. UNION OF
INDIA, 1980 (4) SCC 306. Thus, Court has no hesitation in holding that
even if the relationship between spouses is not cordial and there is
nomination in terms of the rules and instructions for grant of service related
benefit to the wife or husband, even then the spouse is entitled to benefit of
5
family pension. In the present case, the respondents, without any lawful
reason have withheld the indicated amount and then released it during the
pendency of the O.A. and as such they cannot escape from the liability of
granting interest to the applicant to compensate for the loss caused to her
due to non use of such a huge amount for a long time, which became due to
her on demise of her husband in 2012 and these were paid to her only in
2018.
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
9. It is settled proposition of law that interest is compensatory in
character and can be recovered for withholding the payment of any amount
when it is due and payable. It is different from penalty and tantamount to
compensation as the person entitled for recovery has been deprived of the
right to use the said amount, as held by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY, IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA & ORS. V. G.C. ROY, AIR
1992 SC 732, which has been subsequently followed in the case of UNION
OF INDIA V. JUSTICE S.S. SANDHAWALIA, (1994) 2 SCC 240, where
their Lordships of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court have held as under:
Union Of India vs Justice S.S. Sandhawalia on 11 January, 1994
9. It is settled proposition of law that interest is compensatory in
character and can be recovered for withholding the payment of any amount
when it is due and payable. It is different from penalty and tantamount to
compensation as the person entitled for recovery has been deprived of the
right to use the said amount, as held by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY, IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA & ORS. V. G.C. ROY, AIR
1992 SC 732, which has been subsequently followed in the case of UNION
OF INDIA V. JUSTICE S.S. SANDHAWALIA, (1994) 2 SCC 240, where
their Lordships of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court have held as under:
Dr. Uma Agarwal vs State Of U.P. & Another on 22 March, 1999
10. Similar view was taken in UMA AGRAWAL (DR.) VS. STATE OF U.P.
(1999) 3 SCC 438, in the following words :-
Bal Kishore Mody vs Arun Kumar Singh And Ors. on 10 October, 2000
In BAL KISHORE MODY V. ARUN KUMAR SINGH, (2001) 10 SCC 174, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court has stated as under:-
G.L. Bhatia vs Union Of India & Anr. on 11 August, 1998
In the case of G.L. BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, 1999
(5) SCC 237, there was an estranged relationship between the spouses.
Nomination of the wife, Central Government servant was not in favour of the
husband. He was also staying away from his wife. After the demise of the
Government servant, when the husband made a claim for disbursement of
family pension under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, agreeing with the authorities that since the nomination was not in
favour of the husband, he would not be entitled to family pension, the Court
declined his request,. Testing the correctness of same, the apex Court, at
para 2 of the judgement held as follows:-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab, ... vs Dr. Sham Lal Narula, Patiala on 31 January, 1962
"A Dvision Bench of the High Court of Punjab speaking
through Tek Chand, J. In CIT v. Dr. Sham Lal Narula
[AIR 1963 Punj 411:(1963) 50 ITR 513] thus articulated
the concept of interest: (AIR p. 414, para 8)
"8. The words 'interest' and 'compensation' are
sometimes used interchangeably and on other occasions
they have distinct connotation. 'Interest' in general
terms is the return or compensation for the use or
retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to
or owed to another. In its narrow sense, 'interest' is
understood to mean the amount which one has
contracted to pay for use of borrowed money. ... In
whatever category 'interest' in a particular case may be
put, it is a consideration paid either for the use of money
or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen
due, and thus, it is a charge for the use or forbearance of
money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by
law or fixed by parties, or permitted by custom or usage,
for use of money, belonging to another, or for the delay
in paying money after it has become payable.""
S.K. Dua vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 9 January, 2008
In the case of S.K. DUA V. STATE OF HARYANA, (2008) 3 SCC 44,
their Lordships have held as under: