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

2004 Supreme(SC) 1519

TARUN CHATTERJEE, H.K.SEMA
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
BALBIR SINGH – Respondent


ORDER

1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "the Commission") awarding interest @ 18% per annum. In view of the order that we propose to pass, necessary facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are obviated. In fact, the appellant has deposited/paid the entire amount of 18% interest and in that view of the matter the appeal is virtually rendered infructuous in view of the order rendered by this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh1: (SCC p. 86, para 24)

"24. We clarify that in all cases where interest has already been paid @ 18% irrespective of the above order, the Authority will not be entitled to call upon the party to refund the amount which has already been paid."

3. This Court after threadbare consideration of the submissions in Balbir Singh case1 mentioned in paras 8, 9, 22 and 23, by way of illustrations, as to under what circumstances interest @ 18% would be justifiable: (SCC pp. 80-81 & 86)

"8. However, the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of facts of the case compensation can be awarded in all mat









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