AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal is directed against an order dated 1st February, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Review Petition No. 34 of 2022 filed by the Allahbad Bank (Now Indian Bank) seeking a modification of a direction contained in para 4 of an order dated 9th February, 2022 in W.P.(C) No. 2797 of 2013 requiring payment of Rs. 1.15 Crores that had been deposited by the Petitioners together with ‘accrued interest’.
It appears that an interim order was passed on 12th March, 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 2797 of 2013 which read as under:-
Text of said order dated 12th March, 2013 made in W.P.(C) No. 2797 of 2013 is reproduced below.
“12.03.2013 Misc. Case No. 2723 of 2013
Issue notice as above.
Accept one set of process fee.
As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against the Petitioners pursuant to the notice under Annexure-14 till 5th April, 2013 subject to condition that the Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,30,00000/-(Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs) in two equal installments by 15th April, 2013 before the Opposite Party-Bank. The 1st installment shall be paid by 29th March, 2013 and the 2nd installment by 15th April, 2013.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.”
A Paragraph from writ Petitioners letter dated 13th April, 2013 addressed to the bank, under cover of which the money was deposited, is extracted and reproduced below.
“To show our bona fide, we are giving a down payment of Rs. 115 lakhs in shape of DD which is approx 10% at total outstanding. To kept in ‘No-Lien Account’ with your Branch till the final approval of our proposal for payment of balance outstanding approved from H.O.”
Soon thereafter on 13th April, 2013 the Petitioners addressed a letter to the Bank depositing the aforementioned sum and stating:
“To show our bona fide, we are giving a down payment of Rs. 115 lakhs in shape of DD which is approx 10% at total outstanding. To kept in ‘No-Lien Account’ with your Branch till the final approval of our proposal for payment of balance outstanding approved from H.O.”
On 9th February, 2022, the prayer for release of the money was allowed together with ‘accrued interest’. The review petition was filed by the Bank pointing out that the money asked to be refunded did not earn any ‘accrued interest’ and, therefore, that portion of the order required to be modified.
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Bank would have earned interest on the money deposited with it by the Petitioners, and therefore, even if the sum so deposited had not been actually placed in a fixed deposit or an interest-bearing account, interest should nevertheless be payable that ground.
The Court is unable to agree with the above submissions. Unless there was a direction that the amount deposited by the present Petitioners should be kept in a fixed deposit or in an interest-bearing account, no liability can be fastened on the Opposite Party-Bank to pay interest on the amount so deposited at the time of the refund of the amount. There cannot be any presumption regarding payment of interest. It has to be specifically directed to be paid or to be kept in a fixed deposit or in an interest-bearing account.
Consequently, the Court is unable to find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Alternatively, it is prayed that at least from the date of the demand, interest should become payable. The Court is again unable to agree with the above submissions.
The writ appeal is dismissed.
………………………………..