TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2014. For six months continuously, the amount which belongs to the petitioner was used by the respondents. Had this amount been returned immediately after dismissal of the appeal and the petitioner had invested the said amount then the petition would definitely got some kind of return which may be assessed in terms of interest. The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 12% to be paid on the amount refunded to the petitioner, to be calculated from 30.09.2013 to 20.03.2014 on ₹ 3.95 crores and from 30.09.2013 to 09.06.2014 to be calculated on ₹ 5 lakhs - decided in favor of petitioner. - C.W.P. No.26241 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2017 - MR. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Punjab and others which was decided on 10.07.2012 by a Single Bench of this Court, while burdening the petitioner with costs of ₹ 10 lakhs which was ordered to be deducted from the amount forfeited by the respondents and the remaining amount was ordered to be refunded preferably within a period of six months. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2012 was challenged by the respondents by way of Intra Court Appeal bearing LPA No.1252 of 2012. At the time of issuance of notice, operation of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2012 was stayed. Ultimately, on 30.09.2013, the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, the petitioner issued notice to the respondents for payment of the amount dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008(1) Service Cases Today 375 . On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action v. Union of India and others, 2011(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 779 to contend that the respondents could not have retained the payment of their amount a minute after the dismissal of their appeal. It is also submitted that the words preferably within a period of six months were used by the learned Single Judge with an expectation that the respondents would make the payment at least within a period of six months. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not asking for the interest from the date the amount was deposited or from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dismissed by the Division Bench on 30.09.2013 upholding the order of the learned Single Judge and the respondents to the reasons best known to them did not assail the validity of the order of the Division Bench any further. From that period onwards, the legitimate expectation of the petitioner started for getting refund but the respondents did not refund the money till 20.03.2014. For six months continuously, the amount which belongs to the petitioner was used by the respondents. Had this amount been returned immediately after dismissal of the appeal and the petitioner had invested the said amount then the petition would definitely got some kind of return which may be assessed in terms of interest. The decision in the case of Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incumbent on the part of the respondents to have made the payment suomotu instead of waiting for the petitioner to serve legal notice upon them asking for the payment. Fortunately, for the petitioner's, good sense appears to have prevailed upon the respondents, who made the payment on 20.03.2014 to the extent of ₹ 3.95 crores but still they retained ₹ 5 lakhs for which the petitioner had to resort to the proceedings of contempt in COCP No.1210 of 2014 after which the respondents paid the remaining amount of ₹ 5 lakhs. It is not a case where the petitioner is asking for interest from the date, the amount was deposited with the respondents. It is the case where the petitioner is asking for interest from the date he becam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
