9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, per annum on the amount of Rs. 30,56,218 for the period from September 1,1992 to November 30,1992. - - - - - Dated:- 19-8-2004 - Judge(s) : M. S. SHAH., D. A. MEHTA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M.S. Shah J.- Leave to make correction in the prayer clause. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents, particularly the appropriate authority (under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961), Ahmedabad, to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum on the apparent consideration amount for the period from July 31, 1992 till December 3, 1992 when the petitioner was paid apparent consideration of Rs. 30,56,218 after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sited the consideration in a separate account under section 269UG of the Act. On September 3, 1992, the petitioner objected to the amount being deposited in the separate account instead of the same being paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner's forms under the Urban Land Ceiling Act also came to be cleared. On October 6, 1992, the trial court passed a consent order under which an arrangement was arrived at for payment of the amount due and payable by the petitioner to the State Bank of India to be paid directly by the appropriate authority to the bank out of the apparent consideration payable by the appropriate authority to the petitioner. On October 22, 1992, Ramdulara R. Chauhan withdrew the suit filed by him regarding tenancy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum on Rs. 46,46,400 from July 31, 1992 till December 3, 1992." The only interim relief prayed for was to restrain the respondents from selling, transferring, disposing off the property in question during pendency of the petition. On June 24, 1993, this court admitted the present petition in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that other petitions involving the issue as regards discounting were admitted by this court. When the petition has reached hearing today, Mr. Tushar P. Hemani, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for reliefs (A) and (B) and also fairly states that the question of discounting has been decided a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of consideration and, therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. (ii) The petitioner had accepted the amount of Rs. 30,56,218 on December 3, 1992 and had passed the receipt stating "this is in full and final settlement of the payment of the apparent consideration of the said property as per the order referred to above. The petitioner is, therefore, estopped from claiming any further amount. (iii) The petitioner was responsible for the two litigations which resulted into the delay in payment. Sub-section (4) of section 269UG of the Act reads as under:- "269UG. Payment or deposit of consideration.-... (4) Where any amount of consideration has been deposited with the appropriate authority under this sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity had already obtained vacant and peaceful possession of the property in question on August 14,1992. Merely because the petitioner had not made any application for such investment, the appropriate authority was not absolved from its duty to exercise its discretion under sub-section (4) of section 269UG to invest the amount of consideration to ensure that the amount did not lie idle and should start earning interest. For the aforesaid reason, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by Mr. Bhatt for the Revenue that since the petitioner had not made application for investment and since the amount was not invested, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the aforesaid provision. As regards the contention that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate authority from investing the amount from September 1, 1992 at least on monthly basis. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to receive interest for the delayed payment of the amount of apparent consideration. The next question would be for which period and on how much amount the petitioner should be paid interest and at what rate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner should be paid interest for the period from September 1,1992 till November 30, 1992 on the amount of Rs. 30,56,218. Since the petitioner would retain the amount of interest with himself, we are not inclined to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner any interest on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
