AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court issued this order on petitions challenging a judgment of the High Court. The text does not describe the underlying facts in detail, but it indicates that the controversy relates to amounts payable by the petitioners to the respondents and the rate of interest applicable to those amounts. The Court first allowed substitution applications and then considered whether the High Court’s judgment required any modification.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the enhanced interest rate of 24 % should be chargeable only with effect from 22-7-1993 rather than from an earlier date.
  2. Whether the respondents could exercise their contractual right of re-entry/forfeiture if the petitioners complied with the payment schedule set by the Court.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment except on the commencement date for the enhanced interest rate. The Solicitor-General, appearing for the respondents, conceded that the 24 % interest should run only from 22-7-1993, and the Court accepted this concession. Accordingly, the Court:

  • Directed that revised calculations reflecting the new interest commencement date be served on the petitioners within one week.
  • Ordered the petitioners to pay 25 % of the revised amount within four weeks of service and the balance within four months.
  • Clarified that interest at the enhanced rate would continue on the diminishing balance until full payment.
  • Recorded the Solicitor-General’s statement that the respondents would not exercise re-entry/forfeiture rights under clause 17 or any other clause if the payment schedule is followed.
  • Required the petitioners to file applications for occupation certificates within two weeks, to be processed in accordance with law.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The petitions were disposed of with the sole modification that the enhanced interest rate of 24 % applies only from 22-7-1993. The High Court’s judgment otherwise remains intact. The order establishes a clear payment timeline for the petitioners and protects them from re-entry/forfeiture if they comply. No broader legal precedent was set.

    Patiala Inds. Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union Of India And Another

    Order

    1. Substitution applications are allowed.

    2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court calls for no interference except to the extent that, as fairly conceded by the Solicitor-General, that the enhanced rate of interest @ 24% will be chargeable only w.e.f 22-7-1993.

    3. Revised calculation of the amounts due and payable by the petitioners will be on this basis, will be served on the petitioners within one week from today. Within four weeks from the service of the revised demands 25 per cent of the amount due from each of the petitioners will be paid to the respondents. The balance amount will be paid within four months of the service of notice of demand. It is clarified that the interest will continue to run at the enhanced rate on the decreasing balance till the date of payment.

    4. If the payment is made as directed by this order, the Solicitor-General states that the respondent will not exercise their right of re-entry/forfeiture under clause 17 or any other appropriate clause on the ground of delay in payment of the amounts due to the respondents.

    5. The petitioners shall, within two weeks from today file applications for the grant of the occupation certificate which will be dealt with in accordance with law.

    6. With the above observations these petitions are disposed of.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Patiala Inds. Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union Of India And Another
    (Jan 12, 2000)