9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to between the petitioners in the writ petition and respondent No. 3 on October 25, 1989. The consideration agreed upon was Rs. 15 lakhs out of which a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid by the petitioners (purchasers) to respondent No. 3 (vendor) at the time of the agreement. On November 5, 1989, the vendor and the vendee filed a statement in Form No. 37-I along with an agreement to sell with respondent No. 2, the appropriate authority for obtaining the "no objection certificate" in respect of the said sale transaction in terms of Chapter XXC of the Act. On June 8, 1990, respondent No. 2 passed an order for pre-emptive purchase of the property. Possession of the property was delivered to respondent No. 2 on June 20, 1990, in pursuance of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opriate authority to issue the "no objection certificate" in terms of section 269UL(3). The present application was filed in October 1998, by the appropriate authority praying that the petitioners and/or respondent No. 3 be directed to repay the amount of Rs. 13,50,000 along with interest at 18 percent. per annum with effect from February 28, 1992, till the date of payment to the appropriate authority to enable the appropriate authority to issue the "no objection certificate" as per directions of this court contained in the judgment dated February 13, 1998 (see [1998[ 232 ITR 87). The application is resisted by the petitioners as well as respondent No. 3 inasmuch as both the parties have denied their liability to pay any interest as deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he property was available with the applicant for any use or enjoyment while at the same time it was deprived of the amount of Rs. 13.5 lakhs paid as consideration. On this basis, learned counsel has tried to justify the claim for interest. He has relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in Appropriate Authority v. Mass Traders Pvt. Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 741. Our attention has been drawn particularly to the following observations contained in the said judgment : "By directing respondent No. 1 to pay interest, we are not penalising respondent No. 1 for filing the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 is required to compensate the Central Government for the type of interim order which it has obtained thereby disabling the Central Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the vendor is concerned, the transaction was over for her, when possession of the property was delivered to the appropriate authority and the balance sale consideration was received by her from the said authority. The vendor neither challenged the order of the appropriate authority in any manner nor obtained any interim orders. Learned counsel for the vendor further submitted that even as per the scheme of the Act the vendor is to receive the balance sale consideration in a time bound manner which shows that it was always intended that the vendor should not be deprived of the money. Another aspect which has been highlighted by counsel for the vendor is that if the vendor is called upon to pay any interest, the entire sale consideration w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te authority is concerned it was acting in bona fide discharge of its statutory duties and it cannot be blamed for having passed the orders regarding pre-emptive purchase of the property. Law has taken its course and the orders were ultimately set aside by the court. That should not be taken to mean that the action of the authority was not bona fide. The vendor, i.e., respondent No. 3, cannot be held liable in any manner for payment of any interest to the appropriate authority. The vendor had to receive the sale consideration of the property. She handed over the possession of the property to the appropriate authority and it was just and fair that she should have received the balance sale consideration. Moreover asking her to pay any interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully justified. Unless such an order was passed the property would have gone out of the hands of the petitioners. The amount of balance consideration paid by the appropriate authority to the vendor was in accordance with their statutory liability on account of having passed an order of pre-emptive purchase of the property. At best it can be said that the purchasers did not have to part with the amount of Rs. 13.5 lakhs which was the balance sale consideration and this money remained with them. In our view deprivation of the use and fruits of the property to the purchasers, i.e., the petitioners herein, was a greater loss to them as compared to the meagre amount of interest which presumably they could have earned on that amount. The purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
