Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2004 DIGILAW 1680 (SC)

Haryana Urban Development Authority v. NATHU RAM

2004-12-01

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI, H.K.SEMA

body2004
ORDER 1.Leave granted. 2. In this case, notice was sent to the respondent at the SLP stage but the same was received back with the endorsement "refused". We have to treat that the respondent has been served with the notice. He is not present nor is he represented by any counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Authority submits that as held by this Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singhl the interest at a flat rate of 18%, regardless of the facts and circumstances of each case, could not have been granted. 3. Relying on the decision in Balbir Singh easel we allow this appeal and a reduce the interest from 18% to 12% per annum on the deposited amount. The appeal succeeds to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.