Allowed

State of Hp v. Kamlesh

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Aug 2023CMP/710/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CMP No. 710 of 2023, the Court allowed an application to clarify its previous judgment (RFA No. 307 of 2016). The Court held that an entitlement to additional interest awarded to claimants benefits all of them, regardless of whether they were appellants or respondents in the earlier proceedings. The application was disposed of with the clarification ordered.

What did the court decide?

Clarification that additional interest awarded to claimants enures for the benefit of all claimants, irrespective of their procedural status in the earlier appeal.

State of Hp Vs Kamlesh — Himachal Pradesh HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Kamlesh

¶2

RFA No. 307 of 2016.

¶3

03.08.2023 Present:

¶4

Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Dy. A.G., Mr. Rahul Thakur, Dy. A.G., Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Gautam Sood, Dy. A.G., for appellants/non-applicants.

¶5

Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for the respondent-applicant.

¶6

CMP No. 710 of 2023.

¶7

By way of instant application, the applicant/respondent in RFA No. 307 of 2016 decided by this Court on 04.01.2023, has invoked inherent jurisdiction to seeks clarification in the judgment passed by this Court and a prayer to the following effects has been made:-

¶8

“It is, therefore, respectfully p[rayed that his application may kindly be allowed and the clarification to the effect that the claimant in the present appeal is also entitled to the additional interest by way of damages, at the rate of 15% per annum for the period between 2005, the date when the claimant was dispossessed till 31.12.2009, the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, may kindly be ordered.”

¶9

Non-applicant/State has opposed the prayer in

¶10

the application on the grounds that the application is not maintainable under Section 151 of the CPC in view of the existence of specific provisions for review of the order as also for correction of clerical mistakes under the provisions of Section 115 and Section 152 of the

¶11

CPC respectively. It has further been submitted that under the garb of present application, the applicant intends to change the nature of the relief allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2023 passed in RFA No. 307 of 2016.

¶12

A perusal of para-21 of the judgment dated 04.01.2023 passed in RFA No. 307 of 2016 reveals that the claimants have been held entitled to additional interest by way of damages @15% per annum for the period between 2005 and the date when the appellants were dispossessed till 03.12.2009 i.e. the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.

¶13

The confusion appears to have been created by use of terms “claimants” at one place and “appellants” at the other. As per the applicant, he was one of the claimants but had not preferred the appeal and hence was not the appellant before this Court.

¶14

In order to clarify the position, the application is allowed. The entitlement to additional interest by way of damages @15% per annum for the period as stated above and awarded vide judgment dated 04.01.2023 passed in RFA No. 307 of 2016 shall enure for the benefits of all the claimants whether they had filed the appeals or were respondents before this Court in the

¶15

matters decided vide judgment dated 04.01.2023. The applications stands disposed of.

¶16

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶17

3^rd August, 2023. (jai)

State of Hp v. Kamlesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Kamlesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ms G-Tech Splicing Pvt. Ltd. (Supplier) Vs Ms Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. (Buyer)

Patel-Gammon Joint Venture Vs Sjvn Limited

Neeraj Vs Anil Kumar

Subhash Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sant Ram Vs Sandeep Kumar and Another