9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled to claim interest from the banks from the date of maturity till payment at contract rate - - - - - Dated:- 24-9-2003 - Judge(s) : K. SREEDHAR RAO. JUDGMENT K. SREEDHAR RAO J.-Though this appeal is posted for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 35 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1293 of 1989. The appellant is the plaintiff and in person argued his case. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000 as damages from defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and Nos. 10 and 11. The plaintiff on account of the death o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and did not permit the plaintiff to operate the savings bank account. The plaintiff filed a writ petition No. 39697 of 1982 before this court alleging arbitrary and illegal freezing of the amounts with oblique motive and sought for a direction for release of the fixed deposit amounts and the interest accrued thereon. The income-tax authorities in the writ petition submitted that the prohibitory order has been revoked and there is no objection from their side for payment of the deposit amounts to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the banks paid the amount with interest up to the maturity after deducting tax at source and did not pay interest from the date of maturity till actual payment. For loss of interest and the inconvenience caused, the plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eized of the enquiry deliberately delayed the disposal of the case and ultimately the enquiry is concluded in favour of the plaintiff that the amount found is not taxable. It is said that on account of such vindictive and irrational prejudicial actions of the Income-tax Officers, the plaintiff is put to harassment and humiliation. The legitimate monies of the plaintiffs was kept out of his control without any legal basis. In view of such mala fide actions the plaintiff holds the officers and the Central Government responsible for the loss and damage suffered by him. After hearing counsel for the appellant, I find that although there may be some sort of grievance but the same cannot be vindicated legally. The Income-tax Officers evidently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the prohibitory order, the plaintiff should have vindicated his right and indeed a writ petition was filed about three years after the expiry of the prohibitory order. In view of the reasons stated above, I find that neither the State nor its officers can be held liable to pay damages for initiating an enquiry into the source of deposits and issuing a prohibitory order during the pendency of the enquiry. Therefore, defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and 11 cannot be held responsible in law. In so far as payment of interest on the fixed deposit amounts by virtue of the prohibitory order, the banks have withheld the amount. The concerned banks although served have remained unrepresented. There is no authenticated material available on record to fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
