AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The above interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 16 days in preferring the review
application.
Heard. Being satisfied with the reasons assigned in paras â€" 3 to 7 of the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made
out accordingly the delay is condoned.
I.A. No.2811 of 2017 stands allowed.
Civil Review No.22 of 2017
The instant review application has been filed for reviewing the order and judgment dated 08.02.2017, passed in M.A. No.393 of 2013, whereby
petitioner has been directed to pay the interest @9% on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realization.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the claim application was filed on 28.09.2010 and the judgment was passed on 16.05.2013 and against the
said judgment appeal was preferred on 17.12.2013. That there is no delay or laches on the part of the railway for the time taken in conclusion of the
case before the learned Tribunal. It is prayed that the interest awarded is excessive and it be scaled down to 6%.
Learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi Vs. Union of India; (209) 7 SCC 372.
Heard. In the case of N. Parameswaran Pillai Vs. Union of India; (2002) 4 SCC 306; 2002 SCC (Cri) 796, the Hon'ble Apex Court had awarded
an interest @12% from the date of the application. Therefore, the interest awarded @9% is neither excessive nor exorbitant.
The review petition is sans merit and is, hereby, dismissed.