Interest on refunded money follows finality of refund entitlement; retention after stay lapses can amount to unjust enrichment.

Interest was payable on refunded amounts once the earlier order was finally upheld and the stay ceased to operate, because the respondents retained money that had become due to the petitioner. The Court applied the principle that a party cannot benefit from unjust enrichment by keeping another's money after liability to refund has crystallised. It distinguished cases denying interest where there was no statutory basis or where the claim was barred by res judicata, and held that the petitioner was entitled to interest on the refunded sums for the intervening period until actual payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the refunded amount for the period after dismissal of the respondents' appeal and before actual payment.

Analysis: The refund became due once the appeal against the earlier order was dismissed and the stay ceased to operate. The respondents retained money belonging to the petitioner for the intervening period despite the petitioner's entitlement having attained finality. The Court distinguished cases where interest was denied because no statutory basis existed or because the claim was barred by res judicata, and relied on the principle that a party should not gain by unjust enrichment through retention of another's money after it has become payable.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to interest at 12% on the refunded amounts for the period from 30.09.2013 to 20.03.2014 on Rs. 3.95 crores and from 30.09.2013 to 09.06.2014 on Rs. 5 lakhs, in favour of the petitioner.

---