POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

Rockline Construction entitled to interest on auction bid deposit, says SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 24 April 2023 , The Supreme Court has issued a clarification regarding the interest rate on the refund of a disputed property sale in the case of Rockline Construction Company v. Doha Bank QSC & Ors. The applicant had sought clarification of the court’s earlier order upholding the setting aside of a property sale by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The sale was confirmed in favour of Rockline Construction Company in May 2007, but later set aside. The applicant had requested the interest rate on the amount deposited in 2007 be fixed, along with any mesne profit to be deducted from the refunded amount.

The court clarified that the applicant was entitled to interest on the refunded amount, but left the rate and terms of interest to be determined by the appellate authority, as the appeal was still pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The court stated that it would normally have decided the matter itself, but decided to allow the adjudicatory authority to decide the matter expeditiously and in accordance with the law. The court also rejected the plea of limitation on the grounds of the long-standing pending litigation between the parties.

The case has a chequered history, with multiple orders and long-standing litigation between the parties. The order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, from 2014, had allowed Rockline Construction Company to withdraw the entire sale amount with accrued interest, after deducting mesne profits or losses. The Recovery Officer-I, Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunal No.1, later held that Rockline Construction Company was entitled to simple interest of 9% per annum, rather than the interest rate claimed by the company, based on the market practice at which the rate of interest is charged for commercial transactions, which is 14.5% with monthly rests.

ROCKLINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

VS

DOHA BANK QSC & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/24-Apr-2023-ROCKLINE-CONSTRUCTION-Vs-DOHA-BANK.pdf"]

Latest Legal News