M/S United Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vinay Nangia (Deceased) Thr His ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 5308 Del

$~25
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                   Date of Decision: 28th October, 2014

+      RSA 308/2014
       M/S UNITED INSURANCE CO LTD            ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal,
                              Advocate

                    versus

       VINAY NANGIA (DECEASED) THR HIS LRS SHRADHA
       NANGIA & ORS                         .....Respondents

Through: Nemo

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

SUNIL GAUR, J (Oral)

C.M.APPL. 17475/2014 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

C.M.APPL.17476/2014 (for condonation of delay) There is delay of 34 days' in re-filing the accompanying appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned.

The application is accordingly disposed of.

RSA 308/2014 & C.M.APPL.17474/2014 (Stay) The only challenge raised in this second appeal is that the trial court vide its judgment of 27th May, 2013 has not granted pendente lite RSA 308/2014 Page 1 and future interest while noting that the transaction in question is a rent transaction. However, impugned judgment of 4th April, 2014 grants pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8 % per annum.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that there was no agreed rate of interest on the defaulted payments. Learned counsel for appellant contends that the grant of pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8% per annum is without any justification and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the trial court's judgment ought to be restored.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgments of the courts below, I find no perversity in the impugned judgment as denial of pendente lite and future interest by the trial court was not at all justified. The First Appellate Court has rightly granted a reasonable pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8 % per annum. The discretion exercised by the First Appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity.

In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Resultantly, this appeal and the application are dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE
      OCTOBER 28, 2014
      s




RSA 308/2014                                                         Page 2