Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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