https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401687 Unexplained delay of more than nine years in invoking Article 226 can defeat a claim for interest on refunded amounts, especially where the petitioner did not challenge the earlier order or seek a timely interest direction. The Madras HC treated delay and laches as material to discretionary writ relief and noted the absence of contemporaneous objections or satisfactory explanation for the belated filing. On those facts, the writ petition seeking interest on the refunded amount arising from confiscation under FERA was held not maintainable and was rejected on laches. en-us Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:56:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401687 Unexplained delay of more than nine years in invoking Article 226 can defeat a claim for interest on refunded amounts, especially where the petitioner did not challenge the earlier order or seek a timely interest direction. The Madras HC treated delay and laches as material to discretionary writ relief and noted the absence of contemporaneous objections or satisfactory explanation for the belated filing. On those facts, the writ petition seeking interest on the refunded amount arising from confiscation under FERA was held not maintainable and was rejected on laches. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 11 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401687