Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI.D.RAJKUMAR, VILAYIL HOUSE versus THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, CHELLETH RANGE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SRI.D.RAJKUMAR, VILAYIL HOUSE v. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, CHELLETH RANGE - WP(C) No. 15717 of 2003(U) [2007] RD-KL 5043 (8 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 15717 of 2003(U)

1. SRI.D.RAJKUMAR, VILAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, CHELLETH RANGE
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :08/03/2007

O R D E R

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J

W.P.(C).No.15717 of 2003

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is challenging 48% interest demanded by the Government for belated payment of sale proceeds for purchase of teak poles. According to the petitioner, the rate of interest imposed is highly exorbitant and unauthorised by statute. The Government Pleader on the other hand contended that high rate of interest was charged on the petitioner's request for extension of time for payment beyond period provided under tender conditions. In fact, the rate of interest charged was initially at 18% which was increased to 24% and again to 48% per annum because the time sought for by the petitioner for payment was six months from the last date for payment. In principle, I find the rate of interest charged is justified because progressive rates of interest are charged as a disincentive against applying for more time and in delaying payment. The sales condition is that payment should be made within a reasonable time and on default, sale gets cancelled, entitling reauction of goods at the WPC15717/2003 Page numbers risk and cost of the purchaser. In order to avoid this worse consequence, petitioner applied for extension of time and there is nothing wrong on the part of the Government in charging high rate of interest as an incentive for early payment. Therefore, in principle, the government is right in charging penal interest at progressive rate in proportion to period of delay in payment. However, this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioners to get the goods on payment of entire balance amount with 27.5% interest. I direct the first respondent not to demand any differential interest from the petitioners for the consignment already lifted by him against payment in terms of interim orders. However, penal charges can be levied, in case there was delay in making payment and in taking delivery beyond time granted by this court. The O.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,

JUDGE

csl


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.