TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 1-2-2012 - SHRI RAJIV SAHAI END LAW Appellant Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Adv. Respondent Through: Mr. S. Vasudev Mr. Rajbir Singh, JUDGMENT RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The challenge in this Intra-Court Appeal is to the judgment dated 4th May, 2011 of the Learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No. 4542/2010 preferred by the respondent and directing the appellant to pay to the respondent simple interest @ 6% per annum on the sum of Rs.7,75,000/- from the date of seizure i.e. 3rd January, 2003 till 31st December, 2007 and @9% per annum from 1st January, 2008 till 1st December, 2008. Notice of this appeal was issued and the operation of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge stayed. The counsels have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of interest on the seized Indian currency:- (i) Where it is found after completion of the investigation that the Indian currency seized under section 37 of the Act is not involved in the contravention and is to be returned, the same shall be returned to such persons together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of seizure till the date of payment. (ii) Where it has been found during the course of adjudication that the seized Indian currency is not relevant for such adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority may pass such order returning such Indian currency together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to such person." 4. The appellant contested the writ petition contending that under Rule 8 (supra) it was only t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The respondent has filed a reply to the appeal and in which it has rightly been stated that the pleas as are sought to be taken now were not taken before the Learned Single Judge; rather the appellant before the Learned Single Judge had itself pleaded Rule 8 to contend that the interest envisaged thereunder was at 6% only and thus the claim of the respondent for interest at 24% per annum could not be allowed. 8. Be that as it may, the said pleas being legal, we are inclined to consider the same. 9. The order in the present case for return of seized currency was during the course of adjudication. While Rule 8(i) applies to return of seized currency after completion of investigation. Rule 8 (ii) applies to return of seized currency du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of guilt of the respondent on some other aspects). The respondent if was aggrieved by non grant of interest had available to him the remedy of further appeal under Section 35 of FEMA to this Court. That appeal was not availed of. 10. Next is the question of applicability of Rule 8. It is expressly made applicable to seizure under Section 37 of FEMA of Indian currency. Section 37 is the omnibus provision regarding seizure be it for contravention of whichsoever provisions. The seizure in the present case was admittedly not by the Directorate of Enforcement (DOE) but by the Police. However, Section 38 of the Act provides for empowerment of other officers including Police to affect such seizure. The proceedings in the present case pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this writ petition in the nature of enforcement of a civil liability that is claim for interest in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention of money is not maintainable. It is not as if payment of interest under Rule 8 (ii) was mandatory (as under Rule 8(i)) and which could be enforced by way of a writ petition. The impugned judgment awarding interest under Rule 8(i) qua Indian currency also can thus not be sustained. 13. We may also mention that we have recently vide judgment dated 13th January, 2012 in LPA 27/2012 titled Virender Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement also dealt with some other aspects of the matter. 14. This appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside, ax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|