Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme: final hearing date governs categorisation, and proved interest may count toward pre-deposit credit.

The Madras HC held that the declaration under the Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme was correctly categorised as arrears, because the date of final hearing in the original adjudication, not the later order date, determined whether the claim fell within litigation or arrears. On pre-deposit credit, the Court held that the expression "any amount paid as pre-deposit" is wide enough to include interest payments, but such credit can be allowed only on proof supported by records. The categorisation challenge was rejected, while the computation issue was remitted for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce supporting documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declaration under the Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme was correctly categorised as "arrears" instead of "litigation"; (ii) Whether the amount paid towards interest could be included in the pre-deposit credit while computing relief under the Scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the declaration under the Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme was correctly categorised as "arrears" instead of "litigation".

Analysis: The final hearing in the original adjudication was recorded as having taken place on 31.05.2019, and no hearing was held thereafter. The fact that the adjudicating authority issued the order after waiting for some time did not alter the date of final hearing. On that basis, the declaration did not fall within the litigation category.

Conclusion: The categorisation as "arrears" was upheld and the challenge on this issue was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount paid towards interest could be included in the pre-deposit credit while computing relief under the Scheme.

Analysis: Section 124(2) uses the expression "any amount paid as pre-deposit", which is wide enough to include interest payment also. Credit for such payment, however, could be granted only on the basis of supporting records establishing the claim. Since the petitioner was to be given an opportunity to place the relevant documents before the respondents, interference was warranted to that limited extent.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent of recomputation of the pre-deposit amount by including admissible interest payment, subject to proof.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained on categorisation, but it was set aside in part on computation of the pre-deposit amount and remitted for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Scheme, the expression "any amount paid as pre-deposit" can include interest payment, but credit can be granted only on proof of such payment; the date of final hearing determines whether the claim falls under litigation or arrears.

---