Delay in review application condoned, petitioner entitled to interest on refund amount. Respondents to pay 12% interest.

The delay in filing the review application was condoned, and the civil miscellaneous was allowed. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to interest on the refund amount due to deprivation of use of the money. Respondents were directed to pay interest at 12% from the date the amount became refundable. The court rejected the contention that filing a special leave petition barred the review application, allowing the review application after withdrawal of the special leave petition. Respondents were ordered to pay interest, and the cases were disposed of.

---

---

Issues involved: Delay in filing review application, claim for interest on refund amount, jurisdiction to file review application after withdrawing special leave petition.

Delay in filing review application: The delay in filing the review application was condoned, and the civil miscellaneous was allowed.

Claim for interest on refund amount: The petitioner claimed interest on the refund amount of Rs. 84,500. The court found that the petitioner was deprived of the use of the money from January 6, 1988, when the amount became refundable. It was determined that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 should compensate the petitioner for the deprivation of the use of the money, as the demand draft was not encashed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to pay interest at 12 per cent from January 6, 1988, till the actual date of refund of the amount.

Jurisdiction to file review application after withdrawing special leave petition: The respondents contended that the petitioner could not approach the court for review after filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. However, the court rejected this contention, noting that the petitioner had withdrawn the special leave petition himself. The court held that there was no prohibition on the petitioner filing a review application in the court, as advised by counsel. The review application was allowed after hearing counsel for all parties involved.

Conclusion: The court directed respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to pay interest on the refund amount, and both civil miscellaneous cases were disposed of accordingly.

---