AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—Learned counsel for the appellant states that his grievance against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is only on two grounds as under:- i) The cut off date to be taken is 29.12.1995 when the competent authority found the respondents eligible for benefit under the "Central Interest Subsidy Scheme" for the riot affected borrowers and not from the date of the Scheme which provides a cut off date as 31.03.1992.
ii) The learned Single Judge has relied upon the calculations made by the respondents as Annexures P-11 to P-13 while the appellant has its own methodology of calculations.
In so far as the first aspect is concerned, the reliance is placed on Annexure R-3/2 dated 29.12.1995 which is a revision of the original scheme. The point of clarification which was made by IDBI was qua the amount of relief to be reduced from the balance outstanding and it was specified that the same should be from the date of decision of the competent authority and not from the date of receipt of the subsidy amount by the Corporation from IDBI as advised earlier vide a note dated 10.11.1995. It is in that context that a clarification is issued and not that the benefit should not be made available under the scheme from the date the scheme came into effect.
The second aspect appears to be a mere apprehension in the mind of the appellant as the learned Single Judge has not issued any direction to treat Annexures P-11 to P-13 as sacrosanct but has only recorded that these are calculations of the respondents. Infact this position is not even disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants are thus free to do their own calculations and these Annexures are only material for the appellants to consider as to the manner in which the respondents have done their calculations. Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn my attention to the cross objections filed by the respondents to state that if any extra amount has been paid by the respondents, the same should be refunded back with interest as it was paid under duress.
We are of the view that the only relief which can be granted would be for the extra amount to be refunded but we are not inclined to specify any interest amount in view of the fact that they were paid by the respondents. All that is needed is that the exercise should be carried out at the earliest so that the respondents do not suffer. We thus direct the appellants to carry out the complete exercise within a maximum period of three months from today and whatever the amount, if any, has been paid in excess by the respondents, be refunded within the same period of time.
The appeal and the cross objections accordingly stand disposed of.
All the pending applications are also disposed of.