https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306468 Payment through a recognised bank-issued instrument was treated as stopping further interest under the principle underlying Order XXI Rule 1 CPC once the principal amount had been debited from the developer's account in 2005. Because the complainant did not seek protective directions or insist on an interest-bearing deposit when the pay order was filed, there was no legal basis to extend liability beyond 30 April 2005. The complainant's demand for interest on the principal sum from 4 October 1993 until realisation in 2016 was therefore unsupported by the stated rule and principle. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Feb 2023 08:57:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306468 Payment through a recognised bank-issued instrument was treated as stopping further interest under the principle underlying Order XXI Rule 1 CPC once the principal amount had been debited from the developer's account in 2005. Because the complainant did not seek protective directions or insist on an interest-bearing deposit when the pay order was filed, there was no legal basis to extend liability beyond 30 April 2005. The complainant's demand for interest on the principal sum from 4 October 1993 until realisation in 2016 was therefore unsupported by the stated rule and principle. Case-Laws Law of Competition Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306468