https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306468 The Supreme Court allowed the developer's appeal, overturning the NCLAT's order that mandated further compensation in the form of compound interest. The court ruled that the developer was not liable for interest on the refunded amount after issuing the pay order on 30th April 2005, as the payment was considered made at that point. The complainant's appeal for interest from 1993 to 2016 was dismissed. The court suggested that judicial forums establish guidelines to ensure that amounts deposited with them are placed in interest-bearing accounts to prevent similar disputes in the future. 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 The Supreme Court allowed the developer's appeal, overturning the NCLAT's order that mandated further compensation in the form of compound interest. The court ruled that the developer was not liable for interest on the refunded amount after issuing the pay order on 30th April 2005, as the payment was considered made at that point. The complainant's appeal for interest from 1993 to 2016 was dismissed. The court suggested that judicial forums establish guidelines to ensure that amounts deposited with them are placed in interest-bearing accounts to prevent similar disputes in the future. Case-Laws Law of Competition Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306468