Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High 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