AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, for the Appellant. None is present for the Respondent.
This matter can be concluded safely as learned Counsel for the Appellant relying upon the judgments in M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited and others versus Mr. Ankit Jain in First Appeal No. 185 of 2020 decided on 17.05.2022 and the judgment dated 19.12.2022 in the case of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited and others versus Harvinder Singh in First Appeal No. 916 of 2018 contends that this Appeal is also covered by the ratio of the aforesaid decisions including the reduction in the rate of interest. Since it is conceded on behalf of learned Counsel for the Appellant that the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgments, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, who claims himself to be a representative on behalf of the Respondents, does not dispute the same.
It is pointed out that during the pendency of the First Appeal an Order was passed on 05.07.2022 to the following effect:
“An adjournment is sought on behalf of the Appellant, which is opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the respondents submits that respondents / complainants are suffering since long and the Appellant which is delaying the matter is not ready to refund the principal money.
Counsel for the Appellant on instructions submits that entire principal money is lying deposited with the State Commission and same may be released alongwith accrued interest thereon to the respondents / complainants without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the present Appeal.
In view of this submission, the State Commission is directed to release the deposited money alongwith accrued interest thereon to the respondents / complainants immediately on their moving an application. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present case.
Matter be listed again for final arguments. Appellant is given four weeks’ time to file their written synopsises not exceeding 1-2 pages along with pagination and case laws, if any, within four weeks, with advance copy to the respondents.
Thereafter, Registry will list the matter for final arguments with due intimation to the parties.”
The amount of refund as directed appears to have been deposited and it is quite possible that the same may have been released to the Respondent / Complainant, about which the Representative has no information.
Assuming that the amount has been deposited and released as per the order dated 05.07.2022, the only part which remains to be disbursed is the interest which also now stands covered by the aforesaid decision by reducing the rate of interest to 9%.
Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of on the same terms. The amount of interest shall be calculated at the rate of 9%. This calculated amount shall be disbursed to the Respondent / Complainant directly by the Appellant or shall be deposited before the State Commission within four months.
In the event of default of payment by the Appellant within four months the rate of interest shall stand increased to 12% till the date of actual payment.
The Appeal therefore stands disposed of finally with the aforesaid directions.