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

1985 Supreme(SC) 169

A.V.VARADARAJAN, RANGANATH MISRA, SYED M.FAZAL ALI
State Of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
MOHINDER SINGH – Respondent


( 1 ) ORDER :- Heard counsel for the parties. We find no merit in this appeal so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, because special leave petition has been dismissed against the impugned judgment. However, the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Act 68 of 1984 by which 30 Per Cent solatium is to be given from the date of publication to the date of notification under S. 4, sub-section (1) of the Act, and interest at the rate of 9 Per Cent instead of 6 Per Cent , as originally contained in the unamended Act, from the date of taking possession of the land acquired. Since the decision in this case has been given after one year, it is manifest that under the said Act, respondents would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 Per Cent towards which they have already got 6 Per Cent.

( 2 ) WITH the above observation, we dismiss the appeal. Order accordingly.

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