Interest - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court on Land Acquisition: Proximity to Town & Highway Matters in Valuation

6Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Land Acquisition: Proximity to Town & Highway Matters in Valuation

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, applying parity from its earlier decision in Manohar & Others. It upheld the market value determined from comparable sale exemplars but mandated a 20% deduction due to the superior location and smaller size of the exemplar plots. The Court awarded enhanced compensation with statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while denying interest for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition. Facts Of The Case: The appellants were landowners whose agricultural lands near Jintur town in Parbhani District were acquired in the 1990s under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, for setting up an industrial area. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in 1994, fixing compensation. Dissatisfied with the quantu...

Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act

The Supreme Court of India held that demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, can be raised by railway authorities even after delivery of goods. The Court clarified that Section 66 does not specify a stage for imposing such charges , distinguishing it from Sections 73 and 78, which relate to punitive charges for overloading and require recovery before delivery. The Court also stated that the High Court's reliance on Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. was erroneous as that case pertained to overloading and Section 54, not misdeclaration under Section 66. Facts Of The Case: The case involves appeals filed by the Union of India against M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others, stemming from a judgment ...

Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project

The Supreme Court ruled that while consumer commissions can award compensation for deficiency in service, including mental harassment and litigation costs, they cannot award interest on a loan taken by the consumer in addition to the stipulated contractual interest (8% compounded annually) on the refunded amount. The Court emphasized that the awarded interest sufficiently compensates for the deprivation of investment, and awarding interest under multiple heads for the same default is unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) launched a residential scheme called 'Purab Premium Apartments' in 2011. Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar (respondents) applied for flats, with Anupam Garg paying an earnest money of ₹5,50,000 for a 2-BHK + Servant Room apar...