9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 947 - HC - CustomsInterest on delayed payment - whether the petitioner is entitled to the interest at least from the date when the appeal was dismissed? - Held that - the clock stopped ticking at the time when the stay was granted by the Division Bench but ultimately the appeal was 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 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.
Issues:
1. Entitlement to interest for delayed payment after a court order. 2. Interpretation of the court's direction regarding payment timeline. 3. Application of legal principles on unjust enrichment and undeserved gain. 4. Calculation and rate of interest to be paid on the refunded amount. 5. Timeline for payment and consequences for non-compliance. Issue 1: Entitlement to Interest for Delayed Payment The petitioner sought a direction for interest on delayed payment after a court order. The respondents argued against interest, stating the absence of a specific order by the Single Judge. The petitioner contended that interest should accrue from the dismissal of the appeal. The court examined the delay in payment post-appeal dismissal and the petitioner's legitimate expectation for a refund during this period. Issue 2: Interpretation of Court's Direction The Single Judge's direction was to release payment preferably within six months, but the respondents filed an appeal leading to a stay. The Division Bench eventually dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order. The court noted the delay in refund post-appeal dismissal and the respondents' use of the petitioner's money during this period. Issue 3: Legal Principles on Unjust Enrichment The court referenced the principle of unjust enrichment from a Supreme Court case, emphasizing the obligation to neutralize undeserved gain. It highlighted the respondents' duty to refund the amount promptly after the appeal dismissal, rather than waiting for a legal notice. The petitioner's exclusion of the stay period and request for interest post-appeal dismissal were considered fair. Issue 4: Calculation and Rate of Interest The court determined the interest rate at 12% on the refunded amounts from the appeal dismissal date to the actual payment dates. It specified the interest calculation for two separate amounts and directed prompt payment within three months from the order receipt. Non-compliance could lead to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Issue 5: Timeline for Payment and Consequences The court emphasized the need for timely payment to the petitioner, setting a three-month deadline for compliance. Failure to pay within the stipulated period would empower the petitioner to invoke the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for enforcement. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved, the legal interpretations, and the court's directives regarding interest payment, ensuring clarity and understanding of the case's intricacies.
|
