Search Results for "Exorbitant Interest"

474 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 474 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Execute Consent Decree in Company Liquidation. Consent Decree Declared Void as Fraudulent Preference Under Section 446 of Companies Act, 1956.

The appeal arose from an order of the Company Judge refusing leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 to the appellant, Forbes & Company Lim...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Lack of Evidence on Income and Permanent Disability. Claimant Failed to Prove Income or Permanent Disability, Resulting in Reduction of Award from Rs.5,50,000 to Rs.1,00,000.

The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 20.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.130/1992. The c...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Insurance Companies' Appeals in Motor Vehicle Accident Case — Insurers Exonerated from Liability Due to Violation of Policy Conditions. Claimant's Appeal for Enhanced Compensation Dismissed.

The case involves three appeals arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.08.2012. The claimant, Durgappa, sustained injuries while tr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Partly Allows MTNL's Challenge to Arbitral Award, Reduces Future Interest from 18% to 9%. Court upheld the arbitrator's findings on quantum but modified the future interest rate as excessive under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), a Central Government Corporation, challenged an arbitral award dated 3 July 2006 passed by a so...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Part in Flat Purchase Dispute — Earnest Money Refund with Daily Fine and Compound Interest Upheld but Reduced. Clause 4 of Agreement for Construction and Sale Held to Be a Valid Forfeiture Clause, Not a Penalty, Under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The plaintiff, Dr. Jagdish J.N. Counte, entered into a written agreement dated 13.4.96 with the defendant, M/s. Carl Estate Private Limited, for the p...