Swamidasan Vs. Kali & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 352 of 2000
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15228 of 1998)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15228/1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14/07/1997 in SA 120/97 of the High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15228 of 1998)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15228/1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14/07/1997 in SA 120/97 of the High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam)
Petitioner: Swamidasan
Respondent: Kali & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 352 of 2000
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15228 of 1998)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15228/1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14/07/1997 in SA 120/97 of the High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15228 of 1998)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 15228/1998
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14/07/1997 in SA 120/97 of the High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam)
Judges: DR. A.S.ANAND,CJI,S.P.KURDUKAR & R.C.LAHOTI,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 13, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. M.P. Vinod, Advocate for the Petitioner(s).
Mr. B.V. Deepak, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1
Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 & 3.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION LAW
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 136 – Equity – Interference by Supreme Court – When justified – High Court granting relief on equity. Held in such cases no interference called for under Article 136. On peculiar facts court ordering grant of interest in addition to the amount determined by High Court.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that though the order made by the High Court has essen-tially granted relief in equity and no interference is called for at our hands in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Consti-tution, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the amount of Rs. 8,000/- had been deposited by the appell-ant as early as in 1989, it would be appropriate that the re-spondent No. 1 should, in addition to depositing a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, as directed by the High Court vide order dated 14th July, 1997, impugned herein, also pays interest to the appellant, which we quantify as Rs. 5,000/- in toto. Thus, the appellant shall be entitled to receive Rs. 25,000/-.
3. On the entire amount of Rs. 25,000/- being deposited in the trial court within eight weeks from today, the sale shall stand set aside. The bank shall be entitled to withdraw its outstandings against respondent No. 1, from out of the amount already deposited by the auction purchaser in the Court below.
4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that though the order made by the High Court has essen-tially granted relief in equity and no interference is called for at our hands in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Consti-tution, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the amount of Rs. 8,000/- had been deposited by the appell-ant as early as in 1989, it would be appropriate that the re-spondent No. 1 should, in addition to depositing a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, as directed by the High Court vide order dated 14th July, 1997, impugned herein, also pays interest to the appellant, which we quantify as Rs. 5,000/- in toto. Thus, the appellant shall be entitled to receive Rs. 25,000/-.
3. On the entire amount of Rs. 25,000/- being deposited in the trial court within eight weeks from today, the sale shall stand set aside. The bank shall be entitled to withdraw its outstandings against respondent No. 1, from out of the amount already deposited by the auction purchaser in the Court below.
4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
