9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced in the earlier part of this order and the appellants shall be entitled to charge interest for the period during which stay granted by the Commission was in operation. Although the amount of interest in brochure is stated to be 20% which is unconscionable in the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the same to15% per annum. The appellants shall be entitled to charge interest on the amount due for the period during which stay remained in operation at the rate of 15% per annum. In case the possession of the house has not been handed over to the respondent, then the appellants shall handover the possession of the house on payment of the principal amount, if any, not already paid along with interest for the period during which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93 demanded a finalconsideration of ₹ 2,25,000/- (Rupees Two lacs twenty five thousand only).This payment was to be made within three months failing which the allotment wasliable to be cancelled. Under the Scheme, on the delayed payment of any amount /installment, the allottee is liable to pay interest which is stated to be 20% . Aggrieved against the demand raised by the appellants, respondent filed acomplaint under Section 10(a)(i) read with Section 37 of the Act alongwith anapplication for temporary injunction under Section 12-A of the Act. The Commissionvide interim order dated 15th September, 1993 restrained the appellants fromcancelling the allotment. The Commission vide its order dated 24th June, 1998 whilearriving at the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. In Gursharan Singh vs. New DelhiMunicipal Committee reported in (1996) 2 SCC 459, this Court observed in para 13 asfollows: 13. In view of the legal maxim actus curiae neminemgravabit which means that an act of court shall prejudiceno man, NDMC is justified in making a claim for interestover the arrears which have remained unpaid for morethan 12 years because of the interim orders passed bythis Court..... In State of M.P. vs. M .V.Vyavsaya Co. reported in (1997) 1 SCC 156, this Court in paras 15 19 observed as follows: 15.....This Court has also repeatedly emphasized theinadvisability of making interim orders which have theeffect of depriving the State (the people of the State) ofthe revenues legitimately due to it. The Court should nott ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed.We, however, feel that awarding of interest @ 18% perannum from the aforesaid period was on excessiveside.......In our opinion 15% per annum interest for theaforesaid period would have been just and proper. We,however, agree with the findings of the High Court thatthe respondents are free to charge appropriate intereston the amount of arrears of rent between 1.3.1992 to thedate when the stay orders were passed by the HighCourt.... In view of the above judgments, we need not dilate on the subject any moreand respectfully following the dictum in these judgments, set aside the partof theorder reproduced in the earlier part of this order and the appellants shall be entitled tocharge interest for the period during which stay granted by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
