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

1985 Supreme(SC) 154

A.N.SEN, D.P.MADAN, P.N.BHAGWATI
Chameli Wati – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

 Leave granted.

2. We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in the exercise of its discretion under Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in not awarding interest on the amount of compensation finally determined by it from the date of the application. It is undoubtedly true that under Sec. 110-CC, the Division Bench of the High Court had discretion to award interest at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of the application as it may think fit in the exercise of its discretion. But it is well settled that every discretion conferred by statute must be exercised judicially on the basis of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Here when the learned Single Judge enhanced the amount of compensation, he awarded interest on the enhanced amount @6% per annum from the date of his judgment and the Division Bench also when it further enhanced the amount of compensation, directed that interest at the rate of 6% per annum be paid on the enhanced amount from the date of its judgment and not from the date of the application. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench totally ignored the fact that the enhanced amo


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