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

1998 Supreme(SC) 1131

K.VENKATASWAMI, S.B.MAJMUDAR, S.SAGHIR AHMAD
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Harish Chandra And Company – Respondent


Judgment

Majmudar, J.-Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 6307 of 1996.

We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties in these two appeals.

2. Both these appeals by special leave arise out of one and the same judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

3. In Civil Appeal No. 7643 of 1995, the appellant-State of U.P. has brought in challenge the aforesaid order of the High Court dismissing its appeal against the award decree passed by the learned Trial Judge subject to a slight modification in favour of the appellant-State to which we will make a reference while considering the cross-appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6307 of 1995. The cross-appeal is filed by the respondent Harish Chandra & Co. in Civil Appeal No. 7643 of 1995 who has felt aggrieved by the modification regarding rate of interest as ordered by the High Court in the impugned judgment to the extent it reduced interest from 15 per cent per annum as awarded by the trial Court from the date of decree till payment to 6 per cent.

4. A few facts leading to the controversy in question may be stated at the outset. On 26th October, 1979, an agreement was entered into between the Suprintending Engineer, Irrigati





















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