Whether interest is covered by doctrine of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius or Restitutio ad integrum or restitutio in integrum

The reference is,

CIVIL APPEAL No . 3861 of 2014 between

State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand)

Through the Sub Divisional Officer .... Appellant

Versus

Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. …. Respondent

This Order was passed on 9th May, 2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

What intrigues me first is that,

Why is this order of Hon'ble SC unreported?

This case was with reference to a demand raised for payment of interest by TATA STEEL on the land revenue dues on Jamshedpur land which has been under illegal possession & control of TATAS I have stated many times and TATAS have been earning land revenue on the 12,500 acres of land atleast to the gross detriment of State of Jharkhand for the last 100 years.

Now, Hon'ble SC invoked the doctrine of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius which is a principle to interpret contract to deny interest.

What intrigues me further is that,

Why did Hon'ble SC fail to invoke the principle Restitutio ad integrum or restitutio in integrum which means restoration to original condition? It is one of the primary guiding principles behind the awarding of damages in common law and negligence claims.

What intrigues me further is that the Hon'ble SC assumed that the Jamshedpur land got vested with State of Bihar twice under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 by its various fraudulent amendments and/ or their interpretations to be precise.

I have already stated that the Agreement of 1984 between State of Bihar & TATAS and Agreement of 2005 between State of Jharkhand & TATAS are fraudulent documents! If they are correct then why other similar land in the undivided Singhbhum district remain outside the preview of the said Act?

We lost Rs.5.97 crore for incorrect submission made by our advocates before the Hon'ble SC invoking Bihar Land Reforms Act than Government Grants Act against TATAS.

I am not curious about the brief given to State of Jharkhand as the then Chief Minister was Raghuvar Das a known TATA agent and a dubious personality!

However, I appeal to the new Chief Minister to make an inquiry into the same and file a Review before the Hon'ble SC or cancel the agreement of 2005 and restore the correct position.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Akhilesh Shrivastava的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了