2006 (5) TMI 190 - HC - Companies Law

Court awards interest on refund amount, emphasizing equitable principles and jurisdiction under Article 226.

S. Parameswaran Versus Secretary, Union of India

The court held that the petitioner, absolved of allegations regarding seized funds and penalties, was entitled to interest on the refund amount from the ... Writ - Maintainability of Issues Involved:1. Refund of seized amount and penalty.2. Entitlement to interest on the refund.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to award interest in the absence of statutory provision.4. Laches and delay in filing the writ petition.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Refund of Seized Amount and Penalty:The petitioner, a practicing Chartered Accountant and Director in a private company, had Rs. 99,800 seized during a search on 13-8-1984 for alleged violations of section 9(1)(b) of FERA, 1973. An order on 23-6-1986 confiscated the amount and levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed, but subsequent appeals in C.M.A. Nos. 1210 and 1211 of 1993 were allowed by a Division Bench on 11-4-1997, absolving the petitioner of all allegations. Despite several representations, the refund was not processed until a writ petition resulted in an order on 11-3-2002 directing the second respondent to consider the refund. The second respondent offered Rs. 1,09,800 without interest, which the petitioner contested.2. Entitlement to Interest on the Refund:The petitioner argued for interest on the refund amount, citing precedents where courts awarded interest in the absence of statutory provisions. The petitioner referenced cases such as Union of India v. Coromandel Prodorite Ltd. and CCE v. Thermo Electric Madras Mfg., where interest was awarded based on equity. The Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT also awarded interest on interest under the Income-tax Act without a specific provision. The petitioner highlighted that the seized amount was earning interest in a bank, benefiting the respondents.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226:The petitioner asserted that the High Court, under Article 226, could direct payment of interest to secure justice, even without a statutory provision in FERA, 1973. The respondents countered that FERA, being a self-contained code, lacked provisions for interest on refunds, and thus the court should not award it. However, the court noted that equitable principles could be applied to award interest for wrongful withholding of money, as established in Coromandel Prodorite Ltd. and Thermo Electric Madras Mfg. cases.4. Laches and Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:The respondents raised the issue of laches, suggesting the petitioner delayed filing the writ petition. However, the court found that the petitioner had been actively pursuing the matter through multiple representations and an earlier writ petition. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments stating that delay should not bar relief if no third-party rights were affected and the delay was not due to negligence.Judgment:The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to interest from 11-4-1997 (the date of the Division Bench order) to 27-4-2002 (the date the refund was offered without interest), at a rate of 9% per annum. The court directed the second respondent to refund Rs. 1,09,800 with the calculated interest within four weeks, emphasizing that the High Court's equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 allowed it to award interest for wrongful withholding of funds. The writ petition was ordered accordingly, with no costs.