State Of Kerala Represented By The vs V.Velappan Nair on 25 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Represented By The vs V.Velappan Nair on 25 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 910 of 2007()


1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. V.VELAPPAN NAIR, GRAMATHIL VEEDU,
                       ...       Respondent

2. LALITHAKUMARI,GRAMATHIL VEEDU,

3. LALITHAKUMARI,GRAMATHIL VEEDU,

4. GOPAKUMAR,GRAMATHIL VEEDU,

5. ADDL.R.5. G.SANTHAKUMARI,AGED 35,

6. V.S.ARYA, AGED 13 (MINOR),

7. V.S.AKHIL, AGED 9 (MINOR),

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :25/06/2008

 O R D E R
                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

                     -------------------------------

                        C.R.P.No.910 of 2007

                     -------------------------------

                    Dated this the 25th June, 2008.

                              O R D E R

The State is challenging the order of the Executing

Court (Sub Court, Neyyattinkara) in E.P.No.106/2000 in L.A.R.No.3 of

1997, directing the State to deposit Rs.19,453.72, holding that the

State is liable to pay interest on solatium also. Though notice was

served on the respondents, they did not appear.

2. The learned Government Pleader was heard.

3. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Gurpreet

Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457), held that claimants are

entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation including

solatium, but as interest on solatium is payable based on Sundar v.

Union of India (2001 (7) SCC 211), interest is payable only from

that the date of that judgment. The learned Government Pleader

pointed out that the order of the Executing Court does not show as to

from which date interest on solatium was calculated and also the

mode by which the credit of the deposit made by the State was

CRP.No.910/2007

2

accounted. In such circumstances, the order dated, 25.2.2006, is

quashed. The learned Sub Judge is directed to consider the question

afresh and decide the actual amount, if any, payable by the State,

taking into consideration the Law as laid down by the Apex Court in

Gurpreet Singh’s case.

The writ petition is disposed as above.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

nj.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *