Punjab Mandi Board appealed a judgment directing them to pay interest on a delayed construction bill. The High Court held that the courts below were correct in holding the appellants responsible. No substantial question of law arose on the interest rate. Dismissed.
The regular second appeal was dismissed; interest payable at 9% per annum.
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.
Regular Second Appeal No. 4567 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 4567of 2011 Date of Decision: 21.11.2011
Punjab Mandi Board & Anr.
.. Appellants
VS.
Jagjit Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
**Present:Mr. Ajaib Singh, Advocate for the appellant. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
This is defendant's regular second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by virtue of which they have been directed to pay the interest on the delayed payment of final bill. Heard.
It is apparent that untimely payment of the amount of the construction carried out by plaintiff-respondent, necessitated him to file the civil suit seeking release of the amount with interest. Although the appellants attributed the responsibility on the plaintiff, who carried out the work without its sanction, but both the Courts below on the basis of evidence led by the parties concurrently held the appellants responsible for not releasing the amount of final bill well in time. There is no reason to take a different view. So far as rate of interest awarded on the principal amount is concerned, it is apparent that the learned trial Court awarded interest @ 12% per annum for the period the payment was not released, but the learned appellate Court reduced the same to 9%, which seems to have a penal element in it, cannot be said to be excessive. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
November 21,2011 Jiten
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rate of interest awarded by the trial Court was excessive and required reduction by the appellate Court.
Whether no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the regular second appeal.
Punjab Mandi Board & Anr.
Jagjit Singh
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
