Supreme Court - Daily Orders
National Highway Authority Of India ... vs Ijm Gayatri (Jv) on 14 November, 2019
ITEM NO.21 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SH. ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE
Civil Appeal No(s). 9376-9377/2017
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI) Appellant(s)
VERSUS
IJM GAYATRI (JV) Respondent(s)
(only CA 9376-77/2017 is to be listed before ld. Registrar Court
for orders on fixed deposit. )
Date : 14-11-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Angad Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Sayid Marzook Bafaki, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
On 6th November, 2019 following order was passed by the Registrar’s Court:
“Perused office report. On 28th August, 2019, the Court of Registrar was pleased to pass the following order:
“FDR is renewed for a further period of one year from the due date of its maturity.” It appears that appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.4,04,57,036/- with the Registry in compliance to the Signature Not Verified Hon’ble Court’s order dated 23rd August, 2017. The said Digitally signed by RUPAM DHAMIJA Date: 2019.11.23 amount was invested in fixed deposit and is being renewed 13:14:03 IST Reason: from time to time. In compliance to the order of the Registrar’s Court, file was sent to Cash and Accounts-II Branch for renewal of the fixed deposit for a further period of one year w.e.f. 2nd September, 2019 and the same has got renewed.Item No.21 -2-
It appears that Cash and Accounts-II Branch has forwarded a note dated 4th October, 2019 and has informed that the present FDR is for one year and has been renewed three times till date. It is further mentioned in the note that for two years investment in FDR, the Syndicate Bank has offered highest rate of interest @ 6.7% whereas the amount which has been invested in Oriental Bank of Commerce for a period of one year is attracting interest @ 6.5%. Accordingly, Cash and Accounts-II Branch has suggested that in order to get higher interest, the amount may be invested for two years in Syndicate Bank which is offering interest @ 6.7%. Hence, matter is placed before Registrar’s Court for directions.
The note submitted by Cash and Accounts-II Branch is annexed with the office report. The Cash and Accounts-II Branch has referred to Clause V of Hon’ble CJI guidelines to propose that investment be made for two years. However, the guidelines issued by Hon’ble CJI are not annexed with office report or the note submitted by Cash and Accounts-II Branch.
The Registry, is therefore, directed to file the guidelines of Hon’ble CJI as referred to in the note of Cash and Accounts-II Branch for passing further orders. The Registry is further directed to submit all relevant administrative orders in the form of circulars or office notes that relates to renewal of FDR. List again on 14.11.2019.” In compliance thereto, the Registry has filed the guidelines issued by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. Perusal of the same would prima facie show that the document containing the guidelines is more of the nature of submission note placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India than the guidelines issued by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. Further, it appears that the Cash and Accounts-II Branch has referred to Clause V of the said guidelines. However, the said clause deals with investment of amount which does not exceed Rs.50,000/-. In the present case, the amount deposited by appellant is to the tune of Rs.4,04,57,036/-. Hence the reference to Clause V of the guidelines is incorrect. Item No.21 -3-
Relevant clause in the guidelines that covers the present issue is in Clause III which provides that if any fixed deposit, for more than Rs.50,000/- is to be renewed, it shall be renewed with the bank which has initially issued the fixed deposit, provided the interest offered by it is not lower than the higher interest offered to the Supreme Court Registry for the period for which the fixed deposit is to be renewed. It further provide that if some other nationalised bank is offering higher interest, the deposit shall be transferred to that bank.
The aforesaid clause is self-explanatory. It would apply prior to renewal of fixed deposit. In the present case, the fixed deposit has already been renewed for one year w.e.f. 2 nd September, 2019. In the circumstances, the proposal of Registry cannot be processed in terms of Clause III of the alleged guidelines. It further appears that Cash and Accounts-II Branch has proposed to invest the amount for two years in Syndicate Bank on the ground that it is offering interest @ 6.7% whereas the interest offered by the present bank i.e. Bank of Commerce is @ 6.5%. Thus, there is difference of 0.2% in the interest offered by Syndicate Bank.
I have gone through the record. It appears that in compliance to the order dated 23rd August, 2017 of Hon’ble Court, the amount deposited by appellant has been invested in fixed deposit for a period of one year. Thus, order of the Hon’ble Court was to invest the amount for a period of one year. In the circumstances, the proposal of Cash and Accounts-II Branch that the amount be invested Item No.21 -4- for two years could only be processed through the Hon’ble Court. Secondly, neither Cash and Accounts-II Branch nor the Registry has taken into account the loss that may be caused by pre-mature termination of the existing fixed deposit, which has recently been renewed w.e.f. 2nd September, 2019. The said loss may be more than 0.2% additional interest offered by Syndicate Bank. In that sense, also the proposal does not appear to be beneficial to anyone. The Registry including Cash and Accounts-II Branch ought to have examined the above issues before submitting proposal. It is, accordingly, directed that henceforth such proposal should be submitted by taking into consideration all relevant factors. The Registry has also annexed Circular dated 24th April, 2007. Perusal of the same would show that it applies to amount deposited for the first time in compliance to Court’s order and not for renewal of FDRs. Thus, the said circular is not relevant. There is yet another aspect that needs consideration. The guidelines referred by the Registry is dated 29 th May, 2006 and the circular is dated 24th April, 2007. It appears that the guidelines and circular were issued to tackle the situation prevailing at a time when Supreme Court Rules, 1966 were in force. The said rules are now replaced by way of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Handbook of Practice and Procedure, 2017 is also in place. In the circumstances, Registry may examine the issue as to whether the said guidelines and circular, without their being approval of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for continuation after coming into force the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, will be applicable. Item No.21 -5-
The Registry to examine the above issue and file report forthwith. So far as renewal of FDR is concerned, no order is called at present because the FDR is recently renewed i.e. w.e.f. 2nd September, 2019.
ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE Registrar