Skip to main content

Pay interest first, then principal - SC

The Supreme Court ruled that when a court passes a money decree against an insurance company, the amounts paid will go first to satisfy the interest part and then towards the principal amount. It set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had put the priority in reverse order.

In this case, V Kala Bharathi vs Oriental Insurance Co, the motor vehicle accident claims tribunal had awarded Rs 98 lakh as compensation for the death of an engineering graduate in a road accident. Both the legal heirs and the insurance company carried appeals, first to the single judge and then to the division bench.

Meanwhile, the insurer was ordered to pay amounts pending the final decision. When the case was finally disposed of, the dispute arose over payment of interest. The executing court took the view that the amount deposited by the insurer from time to time during the litigation should be adjusted first towards the interest component and thereafter towards the amount decreed. On appeal, the high court ordered that the payments made by the insurance company shall go first to satisfy the principal amount and then the interest. The Supreme Court said that the high court was wrong and the executing court was right.

 Article referred: http://smartinvestor.business-standard.com/market/Econnews-235293-Econnewsdet-Tenants_stall_Sarfaesi_action.htm#.U1AxlPmSzl9

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more