Interest claim on bank-held sanctioned refund amid unjust enrichment dispute; denied while refund must go to Consumer Welfare Fund.

Interest on the sanctioned refund amount kept in a bank was sought. The Tribunal held that entitlement to interest is contingent on the substantive determination under unjust enrichment, namely whether the refund is payable to the appellant or required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Since a subsisting order directed credit of the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund, and that order had not been set aside, the appellant had no present right to receive the principal refund and therefore no basis to claim interest. The appeal was disposed of, leaving the appellant to pursue appropriate proceedings to establish entitlement to the refund, upon which interest would follow if the refund is held payable to the appellant.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the appellant is presently entitled to interest on the refund amount that was deposited in a nationalized bank pursuant to court directions, when the substantive entitlement to receive the principal refund amount (as against credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment) has not attained finality.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to interest on the bank-deposited refund amount pending final determination of refund entitlement

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal): The Tribunal treated the grant of interest as consequential and dependent on the determination of who is legally entitled to the principal amount-either the claimant as refund or the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment. The Tribunal relied on the existence and effect of operative adjudicatory orders regarding unjust enrichment and refund entitlement, rather than independently adjudicating interest in isolation.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the principal question-whether the amount earlier sanctioned but kept aside is payable to the appellant or must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund-had not attained finality because the appellant's challenge to the later decision was earlier disposed of with liberty to revive after the final verdict of the High Court. The Tribunal further observed that, at present, there exists an order of the Commissioner holding against the appellant on unjust enrichment and directing credit of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. On this footing, the Tribunal held that interest cannot be granted to the appellant unless and until that adverse determination is set aside and it is held that the refund amount is payable to the appellant. Since interest is contingent on a final finding that the appellant is entitled to the principal refund, deciding interest now would be premature.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal seeking interest need not be kept pending. It disposed of the appeal, holding that the appellant can receive interest only if it is ultimately held that the refund amount is payable to the appellant, and that the appellant must first take steps to obtain a decision on whether the principal amount is refundable to it or is to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---