In Brief
TATA Iron & Steel Company held industrial and civic amenity lands from Bihar State under a 1985 Lease Deed. In 1994, the State claimed it had erroneously calculated interest without the term 'per annum' in Clause (xii) and demanded an additional Rs. 5.97 crores. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision quashing the demand, finding that Clause (xii) deliberately omitted 'per annum' (unlike Clause (xv), which included it) and thus interest was payable on a lump-sum basis only. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that the demand was not a 'public demand' under the Recovery Act, holding that it was, but the demand itself was invalid because it miscalculated the agreed obligation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.