Delhi High Court
Mohd. Usman vs Union Of India & Ors. on 17 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1997)143CTR(DEL)133
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
Civil Misc. No. 2895 of 1995 in Civil Writ No. 457 of 1994 :
The delay in filing the review application is condoned. Civil miscellaneous is allowed. Civil Misc. Nos. 8069 of 1994 and 2894 of 1995 :
2. The writ petition was allowed on 19th May, 1994, for the refund of Rs. 84,500 in six weeks. We did not however, pass any order as to interest payable by the respondents. The petitioner filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court claiming interest but subsequently withdrew the same and then preferred to approach this Court by way of a review application. In this review application, notice has been ordered to the respondents and we have heard counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, namely, the Union of India, the Director of Enforcement and the Dy. Director and also counsel for the CIT.
3. A contention was raised by the respondents that inasmuch as the petitioner moved the Supreme Court and filed a special leave petition, he cannot approach this Court for review. We are unable to accept this contention. This is not a case where the special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court but it is a case where the petitioner himself withdrew the special leave petition without allowing it to be dismissed otherwise. We, therefore, do not think that there is any prohibition on the petitioner in filing a review application in this Court as he was advised that it would be appropriate for him to approach this Court instead of the Supreme Court.
4. As to the right of the petitioner to claim interest, we find the seizure was on 5th January, 1988, and the amount became ultimately refundable from 6th January, 1988, according to the order till the date the actual refund was given to the petitioner. Inasmuch as the petitioner was deprived of the use of money, a question arises as to whether the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on one hand or the CIT on the other hand, should compensate the petitioner for the deprivation of the use of the money. It is contended by learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 that the demand draft was sent to the IT Department but it is clear that they did not have the benefit of this money. The IT Department says that it returned the demand draft to respondents Nos. 1 to 3. In fact, it has been found from the bank that the bank draft had not been encashed. That would mean that the draft has not been encashed by the CIT. It is possible that it was lost in transit when sent by the IT Department to respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Counsel for the CIT, respondent No. 4, says that they had returned the demand draft within 10 days of its receipt by registered post. Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, however, denies that the demand draft was returned by the 4th respondent. But inasmuch as the demand draft was returned by the 4th respondent to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by registered post, it must be presumed that the demand draft was with respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Therefore, it is clear that the use of the money was denied to the petitioner by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and not by respondent No. 4.
5. We accordingly direct respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to pay interest at 12 per cent from 6th January, 1988, till the actual date of refund of the amount of Rs. 84,500.
Both the civil miscellaneous stand disposed of.