* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 690/2006
Reserved on : April 30, 2009
Pronounced on : May 12, 2009
M.M.T.C. LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Padma Priya, Mr. Sumit Gehlot,
Ms. Garima Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Batra,
Advocates.
versus
SINEXIMCO PTE. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
% JUDGMENT VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
1. By a judgment of today's date we have dismissed the connected appeal (FAO(OS) 525/2006) filed by the respondent herein and we have FAO(OS) 690/2006 Page 1 upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge entitling the appellant herein to USD 3,75,000.
2. This appeal is by the respondent in the connected appeal, namely, M.M.T.C. against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2006.
3. The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in that it states that the rate of interest of 12% granted on the refund of the amount is excessive and should be reduced. This is the only point pressed in the present appeal though feebly it is also sought to be urged that additional amount of USD 1,72,470 be allowed in favour of the appellant.
4. We are of the view that in the circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the appellant has already enjoyed the benefit of the advance amount lying with it of USD 3,75,000 which has been awarded to it in the connected appeal and also the amount of USD 1,72,470 which amount it would have applied in its business or made other use including by way of earning interest, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge in awarding interest @ 12% per annum to the respondent herein along with refund of the amount of USD 1,72,470. We also do not find any reason, much less a valid reason, to award additionally USD 1,72,470 to the appellant inasmuch as the loss which has been proved FAO(OS) 690/2006 Page 2 by the appellant has been only of USD 3,75,000. We, therefore, dismiss the present appeal but in the circumstances of the present case, without any order as to costs. A copy of judgment passed in FAO(OS) 525/2006 be placed in this file.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MUKUL MUDGAL, J
MAY 12, 2009
dkg
FAO(OS) 690/2006 Page 3