United India Insurance Company ... vs Inder Kumar Kapur And Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 1744 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       DECIDED ON: 17th April, 2013

                   RFA(OS)41 /2013

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.                 ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr. Amitava Poddar and
                             Mr. S.K.Ray, Advs.
                   versus
INDER KUMAR KAPUR & ORS.                ...... Respondents

Through : None.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (ORAL)

1. This appeal arises from the impugned order of the learned Single

Judge whereby the plaintiff's suit was decreed in his favour holding the

defendant liable to pay "mesne profits at the rate of Rs.72/- per sq. ft.

per month for an area of 2840 sq. ft. from 5.5.1996 to 31.7.1999 and

from 1.8.1999 to 15.03.2000 at the rate of Rs. 22.5 per sq. ft. per

month". The plaintiff was also decreed "to be entitled to interest at the

rate of 9% per annum from the end of month from which mesne profits

were payable till the mesne profits were actually paid". The suit

property (rented out by the plaintiff to the appellant) had already been

handed over to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

Rfa(os)41.13 page 1 of 2

2. In this appeal, during the course of arguments, the appellant has

limited the challenge of the impugned judgement only to the rate of

interest, on the ground that it is exorbitant.

3. The suit was decreed about 12 years after the monies (rents)

became due to the landlord for the aforesaid tenures of leases. The rate

of interest awarded is akin to what a long term fixed deposit interest in a

bank or a Post Office Fixed Deposit would have fetched in the

corresponding period. Had these monies been paid to the plaintiffs, they

could have been put to better use and other profitable investments. The

rate of interest awarded by the learned Single Judge is just. This Court

finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment and no reason to interfere

with the same.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE)

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

April 17, 2013 'sn'

Rfa(os)41.13 page 2 of 2