Gujarat High Court
K vs Union on 11 August, 2008
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10231/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10231 of 2008
=========================================================
K
Z LEASING AND FINANCE LTD THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHALIN N MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 11/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
I have also heard Mr. Mehta learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Mithani learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent for interim order.
Learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute the legal position as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 17.8.2004 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1509 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 2877 of 2003 wherein the Division Bench observed inter alia as under:
?S#. In our considered opinion, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Deoki Nandan, reported in AIR 1992 SC 96 relied upon by the learned Single Judge in his judgment has no application to the facts of this case. When the judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court in PPF matter is confirmed by the Division Bench, then in our considered opinion, the same was binding to the learned Single Judge. Merely because the Rules are different, that would not be a ground for discarding the said judgment. The principle remains the same. In the matter of Special Civil Application No.12508 of 2000 almost the same question was there regarding irregularity committed while opening PPF Account. Here, in the instant case, there was irregularity committed by the appellant petitioner society in purchasing Kisan Vikas Patra. If the interest was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in PPF matter, then we are of the considered opinion that on the same line, the appellant petitioner society was entitled to have interest on Kisan Vikas Patra purchased by it from the respondent authority because the appellant petitioner society was bonafide purchaser of Kisan Vikas Patra and for no fault of it, it cannot be penalised by withholding interest for a period of 5 and 1/2 years of Kisan Vikas Patra purchased by it way back in March 1997.??
Further, as mentioned by other coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8886 of 2007 decided on 19.7.2007, at para 2.1, the above referred decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal was challenged before the Apex Court by the respondent- Union of India, and the challenge was unsuccessful and the SLP has been dismissed on 21.7.2005. Therefore, so far as the liability to pay the amount with interest is concerned, it would stand on the date of maturity, since, the amount was accepted and was retained, until the date of the maturity in any case. Therefore, the amount of interest which was otherwise required to be paid on 6.10.2005, has not paid, the same cannot be retained by the respondent. It would be a case to direct the respondent to deposit the said amount with this Court, subject to final order which may be passed by this Court in the present proceedings.
It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said amount of principal is also paid on 16.5.2008 and therefore, there was unauthorised retention of the principal amount as well as interest till today and therefore, this Court may direct for payment of the interest at the bank rate by way of compensatory measure, in view of observations made by this Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi,J.) in case of Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd v. Chief Post Master, Ahmedabad and ors reported at 2007(2) GLR 945 and more particularly the observations made at para 15.
In my view such aspect shall be considered at the time of further interim relief and/or the final disposal of the matter. Hence, by interim order respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 shall deposit the amount of Rs. 5 lacs with this Court on or before 2.9.2008, subject to final order which may be passed by this Court in the petition.
S.O. to 10.9.2008 for further interim order and/or for final disposal of the petition. Direct service is permitted. The petitioner shall be at the liberty to serve respondent No. 1 and 2 by R.P.A.D. Speed post.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) Suresh* Top