2004 (11) TMI 525 - SC - Indian Laws

Interest demand - Held that - Respondent No.1 cannot be put to loss for the closure of the office of HUDA on 01.12.2001 and 02.12.2001 and the postal holiday on 30.11.2001. In fact he had no control over these matters. Even the logic of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be pressed into service. Apart from the said Section and various provisions in various other Acts, there is the general principle that a party prevented from doing an act by some circumstances beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity. The underlying object of the principle is to enable a person to do what he could have done on a holiday, on the next working day. Where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then the act should be considered to have been done within that period if it is done on the next day on which the court or office is open. The principles underlying are lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel a man to do the impossible) and actus curiae nemi nem gravabit (the act of Court shall prejudice no man). Above being the position, there is nothing infirm in the orders passed by the Forums below. However, the rate of interest fixed appears to be slightly on the higher side and is reduced to 9% to be paid with effect from 03.12.2001, i.e., the date on which the letter was received by HUDA. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Clause-4 of the letter regarding refusal to accept allotment.
2. Validity of forfeiture of earnest money by HUDA.
3. Decision on the interest rate for refund.

Interpretation of Clause-4 of the letter regarding refusal to accept allotment:
The respondent applied for a residential plot, but later refused the allotment based on Clause-4 of the letter. The respondent argued that the refusal was communicated timely, despite office closures and a postal holiday. The Supreme Court held that the respondent cannot be penalized for circumstances beyond their control. Citing legal principles, the Court emphasized that the law does not compel the performance of an impossibility. Therefore, the refusal to accept the allotment was valid, and the lower forums' decisions were upheld.

Validity of forfeiture of earnest money by HUDA:
HUDA claimed forfeiture of the earnest money due to the delayed refusal of allotment. The appellant argued that the forfeiture was justified as per the stipulation in the letter. However, the respondent contended that the refusal was communicated promptly. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the forfeiture was not justified given the circumstances. The lower forums' orders directing refund of the deposited amount were upheld, emphasizing fairness and legal principles.

Decision on the interest rate for refund:
The State Commission had reduced the interest rate on the refund amount, which was further challenged in revision before the National Commission. The Supreme Court found the interest rate slightly high and reduced it to 9% from the date the refusal letter was received by HUDA. The Court balanced legal principles with fairness, ensuring that the interest rate was reasonable. The appeal was disposed of, affirming the refund with the revised interest rate.