Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': 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