United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inder Kumar Kapur & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 17 Apr 2013 · 2013:DHC:1944-DB
S. Ravindra Bhat; Najmi Waziri
RFA(OS)41/2013
RFA(OS)41/2013
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the award of mesne profits with 9% interest, dismissing the insurer's appeal challenging the interest rate as excessive.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th April, 2013
RFA(OS)41 /2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amitava Poddar and Mr. S.K.Ray, Advs.
VERSUS
INDER KUMAR KAPUR & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through : None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises from the impugned order of the learned Single Judge whereby the plaintiff’s suit was decreed in his favour holding the defendant liable to pay “mesne profits at the rate of Rs.72/- per sq. ft. per month for an area of 2840 sq. ft. from 5.5.1996 to 31.7.1999 and from 1.8.1999 to 15.03.2000 at the rate of Rs. 22.[5] per sq. ft. per month”. The plaintiff was also decreed “to be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the end of month from which mesne profits were payable till the mesne profits were actually paid”. The suit property (rented out by the plaintiff to the appellant) had already been handed over to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Rfa(os)41.13 2013:DHC:1944-DB

2. In this appeal, during the course of arguments, the appellant has limited the challenge of the impugned judgement only to the rate of interest, on the ground that it is exorbitant.

3. The suit was decreed about 12 years after the monies (rents) became due to the landlord for the aforesaid tenures of leases. The rate of interest awarded is akin to what a long term fixed deposit interest in a bank or a Post Office Fixed Deposit would have fetched in the corresponding period. Had these monies been paid to the plaintiffs, they could have been put to better use and other profitable investments. The rate of interest awarded by the learned Single Judge is just. This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment and no reason to interfere with the same.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) April 17, 2013 ‘sn’