SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 93

S.P.KURDUKAR, R.C.LAHOTI, A.S.ANAND
Swamidasan – Appellant
Versus
Kali – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that though the order made by the High Court has essentially granted relief in equity and no interference is called for at our hands in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the amount of Rs. 8,000/- had been deposited by the appellant as early as in 1989, it would be appropriate that the respondent No. 1 should, in addition to depositing a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, as directed by the High Court vide order dated 14th July, 1997, impugned herein, also pays interest to the appellant, which we quantify as Rs. 5,000/- in toto. Thus, the appellant shall be entitled to receive Rs. 25,000/-.

3. On the entire amount of Rs. 25,000/- being deposited in the trial Court within eight weeks from today, the sale shall stand set aside. The bank shall be entitled to withdraw its outstandings against respondent No. 1, from out of the amount already deposited by the auction purchaser in the Court below.

4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

(C.R.) Appeal disposed of accordingly.

***************

Parallel Citations of ot


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top