Refund of excess interest upheld; limitation defence rejected because the writ petitions had remained pending for years.

The petitioners were found entitled to refund of excess interest collected for the relevant period, as the respondents conceded the refund claim in their common counter-affidavit. The Court directed the refund applications to be processed, the payable amount to be computed, and payment to be made within eight weeks. It also held that limitation could not be raised as a defence because the writ petitions had remained pending since 31-3-1989, and that pendency operated to the petitioners' benefit. The plea of limitation was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of the excess interest collected from them and whether the respondents could deny refund on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: The respondents filed a common counter-affidavit conceding the claim for refund of the differential interest collected for the relevant period. In view of that concession, the Court directed the refund applications to be processed and the payable amount to be computed and paid within eight weeks. The Court also made it clear that no objection as to limitation could be raised, since the writ petitions had been pending from 31-3-1989 and such pendency would enure to the benefit of the petitioners.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to refund of the excess interest, and the plea of limitation was rejected.

---