Birdhichand Mishrilal Gothi Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 835 of 1989.
Petitioner: Birdhichand Mishrilal Gothi
Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 835 of 1989.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 13, 1989
Head Note:
MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURAL LANDS (CEILING ON HOLDINGS) ACT, 1961:
Section 26 – Delay in the issue of bonds – Interest granted by the High Court at 3% enhanced to 10%.
JUDGEMENT:
RANGANATH MISRA, J.:
1. Special leave granted.
2. We have heard counsel for the appellants and the State of Maharashtra. It is not in dispute that the bonds under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 were not issued within the time-frame contemplated by the Act. The High Court found that the delay was for varying periods, the maximum being six years. On such finding the High Court to meet the requirements of equity directed that the appellants would be entitled to get interest as per provision in s.26 of the Act at 3% per annum for the period of delay in issuance of bonds.
3. Taking the admitted facts of the case into consideration and the contentions raised by counsel for both sides before us, we direct that the interest of 3% as granted by the High Court shall be enhanced to 10%. The appeal is disposed of.
4. This shall not be treated as a precedent.
5. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. We have heard counsel for the appellants and the State of Maharashtra. It is not in dispute that the bonds under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 were not issued within the time-frame contemplated by the Act. The High Court found that the delay was for varying periods, the maximum being six years. On such finding the High Court to meet the requirements of equity directed that the appellants would be entitled to get interest as per provision in s.26 of the Act at 3% per annum for the period of delay in issuance of bonds.
3. Taking the admitted facts of the case into consideration and the contentions raised by counsel for both sides before us, we direct that the interest of 3% as granted by the High Court shall be enhanced to 10%. The appeal is disposed of.
4. This shall not be treated as a precedent.
5. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
