<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1962 (6) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289017</link>
    <description>Restitution under Section 144 CPC aims to restore parties to the position they would have occupied but for an erroneous decree, and the court may grant consequential relief such as interest where justice requires. However, where money is deposited in court under a conditional stay order and the decree-holder cannot withdraw it because the security condition is not satisfied, interest is not automatically payable for the entire period of deposit. Entitlement depends on the actual circumstances, including whether the decree-holder derived any real benefit from the deposit and whether the barrier to withdrawal was removed. On these facts, interest was rejected and the award of interest was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2020 18:39:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (6) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289017</link>
      <description>Restitution under Section 144 CPC aims to restore parties to the position they would have occupied but for an erroneous decree, and the court may grant consequential relief such as interest where justice requires. However, where money is deposited in court under a conditional stay order and the decree-holder cannot withdraw it because the security condition is not satisfied, interest is not automatically payable for the entire period of deposit. Entitlement depends on the actual circumstances, including whether the decree-holder derived any real benefit from the deposit and whether the barrier to withdrawal was removed. On these facts, interest was rejected and the award of interest was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>