9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of prior mortgage and having made an assertion in the sale proclamation to the contrary – the petitioner was entitled to interest at least from the expiry 15 days of the notice by the petitioner to respondent calling upon respondent to either get the property cleared or refund the entire amount - Taking into consideration the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant time 12% per annum simple interest on the amount was granted – Decided in favour of Petitioner. - CWP No. 14226 of 2009 (O/M) - - - Dated:- 22-8-2013 - Sanjay Kishan Kaul And Augustine George Masih,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. R. K. Girdhar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate ORDER Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Chief Justice (Oral) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner naturally also served a notice upon respondent No. 1 on the same date calling upon the said respondent to either get the property cleared from the bank within 15 days or in the alternative to refund the entire amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest. The reply of respondent No. 1 was, however, received only through a communication dated 19.3.2009 stating that as per the revenue records, title of the property was clear and there was no stay at the time of auction with regard to sale of the property. It was further stated that since the matter was sub-judice in terms of interim order dated 22.1.2009, no unilateral action can be taken by the department. The petitioner thus, found itself in a predicament where neither the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest on the amount and if so at what rate? The inaction of respondent No. 1 in making the refund cannot be justified. Infact even after the orders were passed on 5.1.2012, the respondent No. 1 has not cared to refund the amount. As far as the petitioner is concerned, its money was lying blocked and it had served a notice dated 19.1.2009 calling for refund of the amount deposited or get the property cleared of the incumbrances. The respondent No. 1 cannot take the shelter of having acted bonafide to keep the money of the petitioner. The excuse being made of the interim order dated 22.1.2009 acting as an impediment cannot be accepted for the reason that it restrained respondent No. 1 from taking further proceedings which would imply that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
