Court orders refund of Rs. 2,63,967.75 with interest for illegal bank guarantee encashment.

The Court found in favor of the Petitioners, directing the Respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 2,63,967.75 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of encashment. The Court deemed the Respondent's actions as illegal and mala fide for encashing the bank guarantee against the court order and failing to refund the amount. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and awarded costs to the Petitioners, stressing the need for prompt refund.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refusal to refund illegally realized sum on the ground of limitation.
2. Encashment of Bank Guarantee by the Respondent despite the court order.
3. Claim for refund barred by limitation.
4. Allegation of illegal and mala fide actions by the Respondent.

Analysis:
1. The Respondent refused to refund a sum of Rs. 2,63,967.75, claiming the Petitioners' application for refund was time-barred. The Petitioners had imported goods and filed a Writ Petition challenging the duty imposed. The Court granted interim relief allowing clearance of goods without additional duty on a bank guarantee. The Respondent encashed the bank guarantee against the court order, leading to protests from the Petitioners. Despite protests, the Respondent did not refund the amount, prompting the Petitioners to seek relief from the Court.

2. The Court found the Respondent's actions illegal and mala fide. The Respondent encashed the bank guarantee in violation of the court order and failed to refund the amount despite protests. The Court noted that the claim for refund was not time-barred as it was within six months of the encashment. The Court expressed surprise at the Respondent's actions and indicated a possible contempt of court if the officer responsible for encashment was identified.

3. The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioners, directing the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 2,63,967.75 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of encashment. The refund was ordered to be completed by a specified date. The Court held the Respondents liable for costs incurred in filing the Petition, emphasizing the need for expeditious refund.

This judgment highlights the importance of upholding court orders, the consequences of illegal actions by authorities, and the right of individuals to seek redress for wrongful conduct, even if authorities claim limitations.

---