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

2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11689

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J
M G ARAVINDAKSHAN – Appellant
Versus
SPEICIAL TAHSILDAR(LA),RAILWAYS NO – Respondent


JUDGMENT

This petition is in challenge of Ext.P5, order dated July 30, 2005 dismissing I.A.No.5121 of 2004 in L.A.R.No.26 of 1994 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur. That was an application filed by the petitioner/claimant for amendment of decree to incorporate interest on solatium which according to the petitioner he is entitled to get in view of the decision in Sunder Vs Union of India (2001(3) KLT 489). Application was opposed by the respondent. Learned Additional Sub Judge dismissed the application observing that claim for interest on solatium was rejected by the Trial Judge, an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code) is not maintainable and that at any rate, petitioner is entitled to get interest on solatium only after 19-09-2001 and since the entire proceedings were prior to that day and entire decree was satisfied. Learned counsel contends that the decision in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006(8) SCC 457) clarifying the decision in Sunder Vs Union of India (supra) that interest on solatium is payable from 19-09-2001 is not applicable to cases where application for amendment of judgment and decree under

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