TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r gave the highest bid of Rs. 62 crores in the auction dated 29.07.2011 which was accepted. The petitioner was to deposit 10% of the auction price at the time of fall of hammer, 15% within 30 days and 75% in five equated half yearly instalments. The letter of intent was issued to the petitioner within 7 days and letter of allotment within 90 days thereafter. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 3.2 crores at the fall of the hammer apart from Rs. 5 lakhs given as participation money in auction and another sum of Rs. 90 lakhs on 30.07.2011. However, he found that the project was not viable due to non-availability of infrastructure and nonfeasibility of the project. Thus, he made a request to the official respondents to refund the money depos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal insofar as Rs. 3.95 crores is concerned and about nine months regarding payment of Rs. 5 lacs. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has vehemently argued that the petitioner does not deserve any amount of interest as it has not been ordered by the learned Single Judge. Rather the learned Single Judge had only issued a direction that the said amount of Rs. 4 crores shall be paid to the petitioner preferably within a period of six months. There was no concrete direction that the amount has to be paid within a period of six months and, therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to the respondents who had challenged the order of learned Single Judge in appeal in which stay was granted by this Court. It is also submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record with their able assistance. The facts are not much in dispute. The only issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the interest at least from the date when the appeal was dismissed? The learned Single Judge had found that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount forfeited by the respondents but he imposed costs of Rs. 10 lacs on the petitioner at that time. He had directed the respondents to release the payment to the petitioner expecting that it would be done immediately but it was observed it may preferably be paid within a period of six months. Instead of making the payment, the respondents chose to fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the payment of interest. In the second case relied upon by the respondents, i.e. Harnek Singh's case (supra), the issue was regarding payment of interest and the Court had observed that it is barred by principle of res-judicata. The res-judicata would come into being if the issue is already decided. If the issue of interest was not decided by the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No.19593 of 2011, then it was available to the petitioner for seeking refund of interest as well. On the other hand, the decision rendered in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (supra), can be relied upon because in that case, the Supreme Court has held that "it is the bounden duty and obligation of the Court to....