9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent petitioners (SCA No. 2171 of 1997. The petitions came to be admitted. During the course of the pendency of the petitions, the purchase price which was received from the Central Government was deposited with a scheduled bank in a fixed deposit receipt and the said fact has come on record vide letter dated April 8, 2004 from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Appropriate Authority Ahmedabad, addressed to learned standing counsel for the Revenue. As per the said letter, an amount of Rs. 2,40,00,000 was initially released by the Central Government and due to the dispute regarding apportionment between the vendors and the purchasers, kept in a fixed deposit on and from October 30, 1996. It is further an admitted position that the fixed deposit receipt was renewed periodically and on the last date of renewal, i.e., February 7, 2004 the amount had swelled to Rs. 5,34,81,261. The renewal made on February 7, 2004, was for a period of 1 (one) year. However, in the light of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the court, without entering into any discussion on the merits of the controversy, disposed of the petitions in terms of the following directions as recorded in parag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the parties are residing at Pune, the aforesaid amounts may be paid to the respective parties through cheques/demand drafts payable at Pune. (iii) Vendors, Shri Shivram Vishwanath Deshmukh and Shri Vishvas Vishwanath Deshmukh, shall hand over the vacant possession of the property in question to the authorised representative of the Income-tax Department within ten days from today and Shri Ravindra Vishvas Deshmukh shall not raise any objection thereto." Thereafter, it appears that there was some delay in payment and exchange of correspondence between the parties as regards the payment to be made and ultimately the petitioners as well as the purchasers were paid the respective amounts of Rs. 115 lakhs and Rs. 125 lakhs, respectively, under cover of letter dated June 21, 2004. As the respondent failed to pay interest despite directions of the court, the petitioners called upon the respondent to make the payment. Having failed to elicit a positive response, the present petition has been moved by the vendor-petitioners. Mr. K.H. Kaji, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the entire conduct of the respondent has to be looked into for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application was not being taken up for hearing due to non-availability of the same Bench, on October 25, 2004 the court made the following order: "The amount payable to the petitioners by way of interest, as directed by this court by its order dated April 12, 2004, passed in Special Civil Applications Nos. 8606/1996, 2171/1997 and 3399/1997, shall be deposited by the respondent-Authority with this court on or before November 4, 2004. S.O. to November 5, 2004. (Sd.) A.R. Dave, J (Sd) K.A. Puj, J." On October 28, 2004, the learned advocate for the respondent moved a note for speaking to minutes wherein it was stated that by oral order dated October 27, 2004, the review applications were rejected "and the respondent-authorities are directed to pay the said amount of interest on or before November 30, 2004. Besides, the said amount is lying as fixed deposit with the scheduled bank, which is likely to mature in the first week of December, 2004." In the light of the note for speaking to minutes, on November 3, 2004, this court modified the earlier order of October 25, 2004, and directed that the amount shall not be deposited with this court. Thereafter the matter has been adjourne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 370), the court has once again taken into consideration the affidavit-in-reply filed by the present respondent in SCA No. 2171 of 1997 and the following extract has been reproduced in paragraph No. 2 of the order dated October 27, 2004: "It is submitted that the consideration amount has been deposited in the fixed deposit with a nationalised bank by the appropriate authority. The interest at bank rate secured on this amount will he given along with the consideration to both the parties according to settlement between both the parties. Purchase order dated September 13, 1996 has been challenged before this hon'ble court by respondent No. 5 in Special Civil Application No. 8606 of 1996. The proceedings in this case are pending." Ultimately, after taking into consideration the merits of the submissions made by the respective parties, the review applications have been rejected and the court has categorically stated that "the Department shall pay the amounts of interest which are withheld so far along with the interest accrued thereon by December 15, 2004" and rejected the applications subject to the above direction. The prayer on behalf of the petitioners to impose exemplary cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
