9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, including the complete failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the Petitioner who has approached the Court rather belatedly. Thus, writ petition is liable to be rejected solely on the ground of laches. In addition, as stated earlier, the Petitioner did not seek a modification of or challenge the order so as to claim interest. - Writ Petition No.20637 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2020 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY For the Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Abdul Nazeer For the Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Spl. P.P. for R1 ORDER A sum of ₹ 32,371/- was paid to the Petitioner on 16.03.2000 as the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800, which was seized from the Petitioner's house on 16.08.1974. The present writ petition is filed for a direction to the Respondents to pay interest on ₹ 32,371/- at 15% per annum from the date of seizure (16.08.1974) till the date of payment of the rupee value thereof (16.03.2000) or, in the alternative, to pay a sum of ₹ 94,259/-, which is the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800 as on 16.03.2000 after sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of UK Pounds 1800. The said order was not carried in appeal by the Enforcement Directorate and, therefore, attained finality. Section 42(3) of the FERA provided for the payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum in all cases other than cases of confiscation either under Section 63 of FERA or under the Customs Act, 1962. According to Mr.Abdul Nazeer, the confiscation was set aside by this Court and, therefore, the statutory interest liability under Section 42(3) of FERA is triggered ipso facto. Even otherwise, he submits that a party that makes payment belatedly is liable to pay interest thereon. In support of his contentions, he referred to and relied upon the following judgments, which are set out along with context and principle: (i) Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade(Dead) by LRs. AIR 1990 SC 185, wherein a writ petition was filed on account of the refusal of the LIC to pay interest on the principal amount in spite of the inordinate delay in payment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the writ petition is maintainable and affirmed the order of the High Court granting interest at 15% per annum. (ii) Northern Plastic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the confiscation was set aside by order dated 26.11.1999 on a technicality, namely, that the statutory time limit of 30 days for declaring that the Petitioner is in the possession of foreign currency had not expired as on 16.08.1974 (i.e. the date of confiscation). Therefore, he submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to interest. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate relied upon the following judgments, which are set out along with context and principle : (a) C.Arasakumar alias C.A.Kumar v. Union of India, CDJ 1991 MHC 218 (Arasakumar). In the said case, a specific sum of money was seized from the Petitioner therein on the ground of violation of the provisions of FERA. The order of adjudication was challenged before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and, thereafter, by way of a civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court. The said civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed and the Enforcement Directorate was directed to refund the amount seized. Pursuant thereto, the amount seized was refunded without interest. A writ petition was filed in those facts and circumstances but the writ petition came to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 18.02.2000, the Petitioner signed the claim bill for ₹ 32,371/- without prejudice to the right to claim interest at 15% per annum on the said amount from the date of confiscation till the date of receipt of the rupee value thereof. Thereafter, the said amount was received by the Petitioner under demand draft dated 10.03.2000 on 16.03.2000. 11. The main ground on which the Petitioner claims interest is that Section 42(3) of FERA stipulates that interest is payable at 6% per annum in all cases other than cases relating to confiscation either under Section 63 of FERA or under the Customs Act, 1962. According to Mr.Abdul Nazeer, the present case is one of unlawful confiscation and, therefore, Section 42(3) would apply and the Enforcement Directorate is under a statutory liability to pay interest at 6% per annum. On this issue, Mr.Ramesh relied upon the judgment of this Court in Arasakumar wherein, in very similar facts, this Court concluded that the expression such proceeds in Section 42(3) refers to proceeds realized in terms of Section 42(1) of FERA, which are required to be kept in a separate account in terms of Section 42(2). This Court also concluded therein that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to request for the payment of interest and that she was constrained to file the writ petition on account of non-payment thereof. Apart from this statement, no explanation is offered for the delay and no written reminders are on record. If the Petitioner had filed a suit to recover interest, such suit would have been rejected in limine on the ground of limitation. On the applicability of laches to proceedings under Article 226, it is sufficient to refer to State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683, where it was held as under: 21. Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief to a party by equity court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of our Constitution, when came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher, President, Industrial Court[AIR 1967 SC 1450 : (1967) 2 LLJ 34], it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 22. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra SRTC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
