Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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