<?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>2005 (5) TMI 699 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458013</link>
    <description>Section 3 of the Interest Act permits a court to award interest in proceedings for recovery of debt or damages even without an express contractual term, provided notice claiming interest has been given and the claim is otherwise proved. Where money was repaid before suit, the proviso to Section 3(1)(b) does not bar interest altogether; it only excludes interest for the period after repayment and before institution of proceedings. On proved and unrebutted facts, unauthorized overdrawing and retention of the bank&#039;s funds without interest created liability for compensatory interest, including on equitable principles. The bank&#039;s claim was therefore allowed to the extent proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 14:29:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 699 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458013</link>
      <description>Section 3 of the Interest Act permits a court to award interest in proceedings for recovery of debt or damages even without an express contractual term, provided notice claiming interest has been given and the claim is otherwise proved. Where money was repaid before suit, the proviso to Section 3(1)(b) does not bar interest altogether; it only excludes interest for the period after repayment and before institution of proceedings. On proved and unrebutted facts, unauthorized overdrawing and retention of the bank&#039;s funds without interest created liability for compensatory interest, including on equitable principles. The bank&#039;s claim was therefore allowed to the extent proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>