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

1997 Supreme(SC) 109

S.C.AGRAWAL, S.SAGHIR AHMAD
Mahesh Chandra Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Swaroopsinghal – Respondent


ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The only question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in directing payment of interest at the rate 6% in respect of the period the suit was pending in the trial court.

3. The facts briefly stated are as follows :

The appellant was a partner in a partnership firm. He ceased to be a partner in the firm with effect from 12-5-1979. On his ceasing to be a partner a deed of dissolution was drawn on 12-5-1979 whereunder the share of the appellant in the assets and goodwill of the partnership was worked out at Rs. 90,000. The appellant was paid Rs. 45,000 at that time and the balance amount of Rs. 45,000 was to be paid after one year. The said amount, however, was not paid and, therefore, the appellant, on 11-5-1982, filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 45,000 with interest at the rate 12% per annum. The said suit was decreed by the trial court and interest was awarded at the rate 6% per annum throughout, from 25-5-1980 till realisation of money. On appeal the appellate court modified the decree and awarded in


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