9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 411 - HC - FEMARefund to the Petitioners of principal amount along with interest - non adherence to Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board orders - Held that - We find that our Court had in Abu Moosa 2015 (1) TMI 977 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Prabodh Mehta 2012 (7) TMI 145 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT had occasion in similar facts, directed refund of the amount received by the Respondents along with interest from the date on which the amounts were deposited with the Respondents till repayment. The Respondents before us refuse to pay interest on the ground that it has not earned any income. Interest is paid as to compensate persons who have been deprived of its amount. Thus in the present facts the Respondents are directed to grant refund aggregating to ₹ 9,50,000/- along with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date of payment / deposit of the Petitioner. The refund should be granted as expeditiously as possible along with interest @ 6% p.a. preferably within a period of 12 weeks from today.
Issues:
1. Failure to refund the amount along with interest as per order dated 8th June, 1999. 2. Petition under Article 226 seeking direction for refund. 3. Disagreement on payment of interest by the Respondents. 4. Precedents cited by both parties regarding refund with interest. 5. Court's decision on refund and interest payment. Analysis: 1. The petition sought a direction for the refund of ?9,50,000 along with interest as per the order dated 8th June, 1999. The Petitioners alleged that despite repeated requests, the Respondents failed to refund the amount. The total amount paid was ?9,50,000, with ?6,75,000 paid in 1987 and ?2,75,000 paid in 1993. 2. The Petitioners, represented by Mr. Chirag Shetty, requested the return of the total amount along with interest at 10% per annum from the date of deposit with the Respondents. Citing legal precedents such as Abu Moosa and Co. Vs. Union of India, M/s. R.K. Jewellers and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., and Prabodh G. Mehta Vs. Union of India, the Petitioners argued for the interest payment. 3. On the other hand, Mr. A.R. Singh, representing the Respondents, stated that while the principal amount would be refunded within 12 weeks, they opposed paying interest as they had not earned any income on the amount. The Respondents' position was to process the refund without interest. 4. The Court referred to previous judgments like Abu Moosa and Prabodh Mehta, where interest was directed to be paid on refunded amounts to compensate the petitioners for the deprivation of their funds. Despite the Respondents' argument of not earning any income on the amount, the Court ordered a refund of ?9,50,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of payment/deposit by the Petitioners. 5. The Court directed the Respondents to expedite the refund process, preferably within 12 weeks from the judgment date, and specified the interest rate at 6% per annum. The Writ Petition was disposed of based on the above terms, resolving the issue of refund and interest payment in favor of the Petitioners.
|
