NIr. A.J. Bhambhani, Ms. Bhavita Modi, Ad v. PRASAR BHARTI
Judgment
NIr. A.J. Bhambhani, Ms. Bhavita Modi, Advs. with Mr. Puneet Jain, Head (Legal & Compliances) & Company Secretary & General Manager (F&A) of the Appellant. versus PRASAR BHARTI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma & Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDIIER ORDER 24.02.2012 We have been able to settle this long drawn out dispute with the assistance of learned counsels for the parties, who have taken a reasonable , view of the matter. It is, thus, agreed that the only modification to be made in the appeals is that the interest payable from the date of the claim petition (8.8.2005) will be 12 per cent per annum instead of 18 per cent per annum. This is stated to be in consonance with an award made in favour of the respondent by Justice S.C. Aggarwal (Retd.) as sole arbitrator titled Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Vs. Numero Uno International Limited dated L2.11.2070, where similar rate of interest of 12 per cent per annum was granted to the respondent in a similar situation and the said rate of interest was accepted by the respondent. Ordered accordingly. The appellant has deposited amounts in this Court which have earned interest. The amounts deposited in this Court in these two appeals will be FAO(OS) 432/2009 &. FAO(OS) r 17/20r0 Page I of2 t t Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA s-? I 3ts released to the respondent with accrued interest thereon to be adjusted against the amounts payable by the respondent in terms aforesaid. The respondent will raise the demand for the balance amount on the appellant within a period of one (1) month from today and the appellant will make the payment within one (1) month thereafter. In case the payments are not made within one (1) month of the demand being raised, interest would be chargeable for the period of delay @ 18 per cent per annum. We appreciate the fair stand taken by the parties. The appeals are accordingly disposed of as compromised. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL. J. ?r*tI*J-J'*/ RAJIV SHAKDHER. J. FEBRUARY 24,2012 b'nesh FAO(OS) 432/2009 & FAO(OS) r 17/20r0
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.