TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oming to the averments made in the review application, let me, in nutshell, state the case of the plaintiff and the basis on which aforesaid amount is decreed. Mr. Rajesh Arora, the original plaintiff who had filed the suit (since deceased and is represented by the LRs.) had imported a BMW car in the year 1993. After payment of Customs duty the car arrived at Delhi. However, on 11th June, 1993, the Customs department impounded the said car and thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 111 of the Customs Act. This culminated in confiscation order. Challenging this order, deceased filed a writ petition in this court which was allowed vide judgment dated 19th December, 1997 quashing the show cause notice and directing the defendants to return the car. It was also directed that the plaintiff would be at liberty to move court for award of damages. The defendants' attempt to challenge the Single Bench judgment of this court before the Division Bench as well as before the Supreme Court failed as LPA and SLP filed by the defendants herein were dismissed. On the strength of the observations of this court in judgment dated 19th December, 1997 giving liberty to the plaintiff to claim dam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was an illegal impounding and detention of the car by the defendants and thus the plaintiff was entitled to claim the damages. Claim is allowed under different heads as under : (i) On repairs of the car : Rs. 2,25,000/- (ii) Damages on account of illegal impounding as a result of which the plaintiff suffered harassment and mental torture : Rs. 5 lacs (iii) 12% interest on Rs. 20 lacs, the value on which the car was assessed by the defendants for a period of 4 and half-years : Rs. 10,80,000/- Interest of Rs. 36,43,647/- claimed for the period from 31st December, 1997 to the date of filing of the suit was disallowed on the ground that the plaintiff took time in approaching the court after the car was released on 31st December, 1997 and he could not take benefit of his own wrong. Claim of Rs. 15,50,000/- on account of loss on the sale of car was also rejected as not sustainable on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove on record as to what price the car was sold by him after getting it repaired. Claim of Rs. 5 lacs on account of expecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....airs. The provision talks of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation while a clerical mistake is of writing or typing. Error from an accidental slip slop or omission is an error due to careless or omission made unintentionally and unknowingly also. While interpreting this provision, the courts have held that a matter requiring elaborate arguments or evidence on questions of fact or law for its discovery cannot be categorized as an error arising out of accidental slip or omission in order to bring it within the scope of Section 152. Where the court considered a legal provision and came to a wrong conclusion consciously thinking that conclusion to be correct and passed a wrong decree, it is evidently not an error arising from any accidental slip or omission but a mistake consciously committed and therefore cannot be corrected under Section 152 of the CPC. The only remedy open to the party in such cases would be to appeal. [Refer : Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala Kshemam Yunik Kuries Pvt.Ltd., AIR 1988 Kerala 223]. 9. Review of judgment and decree, on the other hand, under Section 114 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r OA against denial of the award of senior scale and selection grades. In this OA also he succeeded before the Tribunal. However, writ petition filed by the respondents against the said order before the High Court was allowed and order of the tribunal was set aside. The appellant filed a review application seeking review, inter alia, on the ground that certain documents which were not in his possession earlier constituted discovery of new and important matter warranting review. The High Court, however dismissed the review on the ground that the appellant had not been able to satisfy the court and failed to establish a situation which prevented him from not producing those documents when the writ petition was heard and, therefore, it could not be said that there have been discovery of new and important matter which despite exercise of due diligence on the part of the appellant was not within his knowledge. Appeal filed by the appellant to the Supreme Court was allowed and the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not correct in overlooking the documents relied upon by the appellant. After convincing itself that those documents were not in possession of the appellant at the time....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was that Custom authorities charge interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. That would not mean in a suit of this nature filed by the plaintiff against the Custom authorities, the plaintiff has to be necessarily granted interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. In the impugned judgment, reason for denying the interest at the rate of 24 per cent is as follows : "Coming to the question as to at what rate the plaintiff can be awarded interest on this amount, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest @ 24% per annum as claimed by him for the reason that he being a businessman, is entitled to market rate of interest only. He cannot claim interest @ 24% per annum available to the Customs authority under the Customs Act as the said interest has an element of penalty also and is not market rate of interest. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to show as to what was the market rate of interest during the period 1993-97 but considering the market custom, trade usage and Bank interest in those years, this Court is inclined to grant interest @ 12 % per annum to him on the amount of Rs. 20 lacs of which, the plaintiff was deprived for a period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission. It cannot be said, in these circumstances, that there was delay on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the court or that he was taking benefit of his own wrong. He filed the suit immediately after the dismissal of the LPA. The only time taken was the service of notice under Section 80 of the CPC which was a mandatory requirement. Therefore, the plaintiff shall be entitled to persuit interest also at the rate of 12 per cent per annum i.e. with effect from 19th December, 1997 to 18th December, 2000 : (c) According to the plaintiff, total cost incurred on restoration/repair of the car was Rs. 3,13,421/- and not Rs. 2,25,000/- as granted by the court. In support of this plea, it is stated that the expenditure invoices were filed. In the judgment the learned Judge has stated that the evidence on record shows that about a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was spent by the deceased plaintiff on repairs of the car. Some of the invoices are in Dirham and it appears that while calculating the figure of Rs. 2,25,000/- amount spent in Dirham is not taken into consideration. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that it may be due to the re....