M.M.T.C. Limited vs Sineximco Pte. Ltd.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1998 Del

*     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