Full Text
Translation output
RSA 308/2014 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th October, 2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th October, 2014
RSA 308/2014
M/S UNITED INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate
M/S UNITED INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate
VERSUS
VINAY NANGIA (DECEASED) THR HIS LRS SHRADHA NANGIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Nemo
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR SUNIL GAUR, J (Oral)
C.M.APPL.17475/2014 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.M.APPL.17476/2014 (for condonation of delay)
There is delay of 34 days’ in re-filing the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
There is delay of 34 days’ in re-filing the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
RSA 308/2014 & C.M.APPL.17474/2014 (Stay)
The only challenge raised in this second appeal is that the trial court vide its
The only challenge raised in this second appeal is that the trial court vide its
JUDGMENT
of 27th May, 2013 has not granted pendente lite 2014:DHC:5526
RSA 308/2014 Page 2 and future interest while noting that the transaction in question is a rent transaction. However, impugned judgment of 4th April, 2014 grants pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8 % per annum.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that there was no agreed rate of interest on the defaulted payments. Learned counsel for appellant contends that the grant of pendente lite and future interest at the rate of
8% per annum is without any justification and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the trial court’s judgment ought to be restored.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgments of the courts below, I find no perversity in the impugned judgment as denial of pendente lite and future interest by the trial court was not at all justified. The First
Appellate Court has rightly granted a reasonable pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8 % per annum. The discretion exercised by the First
Appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity.
In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Resultantly, this appeal and the application are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 28, 2014 s 2014:DHC:5526
Learned counsel for appellant submits that there was no agreed rate of interest on the defaulted payments. Learned counsel for appellant contends that the grant of pendente lite and future interest at the rate of
8% per annum is without any justification and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the trial court’s judgment ought to be restored.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgments of the courts below, I find no perversity in the impugned judgment as denial of pendente lite and future interest by the trial court was not at all justified. The First
Appellate Court has rightly granted a reasonable pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8 % per annum. The discretion exercised by the First
Appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity.
In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Resultantly, this appeal and the application are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 28, 2014 s 2014:DHC:5526