2017 (12) TMI 1835 - HC - Companies Law

Rejection of rate of interest - one time settlement - HELD THAT - The petitioner Company was allotted a commercial plot in the year 2008 being the highest bidder therefor. Initially, an allotment order was issued in favour of the petitioner Company on 11.4.2008, but later on, there was some variation in the land size and consequently, another allotment order dated 2.12.2009 was issued. Thereunder, the petitioner Company was liable to pay 50% of the amount in four interest free installments and the remaining 50% in 72 monthly installments alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum and in case of default in payment of the installments, additional interest at the rate of 24% as penal interest. This Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 21.6.2016 not only on the ground that the petitioners have failed to comply with the order dated 29.1.2013 passed in the first writ petition, but also because the Court found that the Advocate of the petitioners made an incorrect statement before the Court and tried to mislead it. This Court, while granting liberty to the petitioners to raise grievance, if any, in regard to the rate of interest by filing suit or by approaching such forum as may be available to them, did not mean that the petitioners would re-agitate the matter before this Court, once again, under the garb of certain communication received from U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad intimating the petitioners that the amount determined under the OTS scheme is wholly justified and it is not possible to accept its objection regarding rate of interest. Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Reconsideration of the rate of interest.
2. Validity of the demand raised by respondents through one-time settlement.
3. Legitimacy of the rejection of the petitioners' request for interest reduction.
4. Disposition of petitioners' representations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reconsideration of the Rate of Interest:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 31.1.2017, which rejected their prayer to reconsider the rate of interest. The court noted that this writ petition was the fourth filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had previously sought relief regarding interest rates in Writ Petition No.4521 of 2016, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the petitioners' application. The Housing Commissioner rejected their request for interest reduction on 25/27.4.2016, noting that the office orders cited by the petitioners were inapplicable as the auction occurred before those orders were issued. This decision was not challenged by the petitioners, allowing it to become final.

2. Validity of the Demand Raised by Respondents through One-Time Settlement:
The petitioners also contested the demand of ?50,27,83,046/- raised by respondents on 31.5.2016 under a one-time settlement (OTS). The court highlighted that in a previous writ petition (No.29003 of 2016), the petitioners had challenged this demand, but the court dismissed the petition on 21.6.2016 due to non-compliance with an earlier interim order. The court noted that the petitioners had not made the required deposits as per the interim order dated 29.1.2013 in Writ Petition No.4840 of 2013, which led to the dismissal of their challenge to the OTS demand.

3. Legitimacy of the Rejection of the Petitioners' Request for Interest Reduction:
The petitioners' request for interest reduction was rejected by the Housing Commissioner on 25/27.4.2016, stating that the interest was determined per the auction's terms and conditions. The court observed that the petitioners did not challenge this order and instead sought a one-time settlement. The court further noted that the petitioners had previously misled the court by making false statements regarding compliance with the interim order, which contributed to the dismissal of their earlier writ petition challenging the OTS amount.

4. Disposition of Petitioners' Representations:
The petitioners sought directions for the respondents to dispose of their representations dated 4.6.2016 and 9.1.2017. The court found that the petitioners had already approached the court multiple times regarding the same issues, and their representations had been addressed by the respondents. The court emphasized that the petitioners could not re-agitate the matter under the guise of new communications from the respondents, as the main relief sought was already adjudicated in the previous writ petition dismissed on 21.6.2016.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that the petitioners could not challenge the same orders again after they had attained finality. The court observed that filing the instant writ petition amounted to a gross abuse of the process of law and dismissed the petition at the threshold.

← Previous Next →