The High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal on the limited issue of the rate of interest. It reduced the interest rate from 18% per annum to 9% per annum simple interest, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding declining interest rates.
The rate of interest granted in the impugned judgment is reduced from 18% per annum simple to 9% per annum simple.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
SARATHI SALES
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Ms. Anubha Singh, Advs.
versus
SHAGUN ENTERPRISES
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manvi Gola, proxy counsel for Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R % 02.02.2018
interest to be granted to the respondent/plaintiff in terms of the impugned judgment which grants high rate of interest at 18% per annum. Considering this aspect this Court has issued a limited notice in terms of the order dated 20.9.2017 and which reads as under:-
“1. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute passing of the decree for a sum of Rs.15,61,576/- but states that interest at the rate of 18% per annum is exorbitant and appellant/plaintiff should be granted interest at around 9% per annum only in view of the ratios of the recent judgments of the Supreme Court which held that in view of consistent fall in the interest rate only lower rate of interest should be granted. The judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard are titled as Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and
others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) .
the impugned judgment at 18% per annum, in today’s time is exorbitant especially in view of the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court as noted in the order dated 20.9.2017.
stated above leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2018 ib
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rate of interest at 18% per annum granted by the trial court is exorbitant in light of recent Supreme Court judgments.
Whether the rate of interest should be reduced to 9% per annum given the consistent fall in interest rates.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and othersReferred¶14
Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678 · Who else cites this
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and othersReferred¶14
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181 · Who else cites this
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd.Referred¶14
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700 · Who else cites this
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.HarischandraReferred¶14
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. LtdReferred¶14
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)
SARATHI SALES
SHAGUN ENTERPRISES
VALMIKI J. MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
