Petitioner challenged excess compound interest charged on ELC advances. Court held respondents liable to refund excess amount with interest at 15% per annum from December 2007.
Refund of Rs.30,697/- with 15% interest per annum from December 2007 to payment date.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.23992 of 2011
Date of Decision:- 01.04.2013.
Y.L. Kapoor
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Batra, Addl. AG Haryana for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.
********
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
In the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent No.3 charging the compound interest and future interest at the rate of 15% per annum which according to the petitioner is contrary to the decision of this Court in Gian Inder Sharma Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 297, which has been approved by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. On March 4, 2013 after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following order was passed by this Court:
“Undisputedly, in view of order dated 10.05.2010 passed in Civil Misc. No. 17519 of 2009 in CWP No. 6673 of 2008 titled as Y.L.Kapoor and others Vs. State
C.W.P. No.23992 of 2011 -2-
of Haryana and others, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure P-1). In the said order, the respondents had calculated the due amount while charging interest as per the policy of the Housing Board, Haryana, on the outstanding amount of ELC i.e. 1) At the rate of 10% per annum, compounded quarterly from the date of demand up to 31.03.2007; 2) At the rate of 15% per annum compounded quarterly from 01.04.1987 to 31.12.2002; 3) At the rate of 15% per annum simple interest from 01.01.2003 till the date of payment. In this case, the entire amount along with interest has been paid much before passing of the impugned order.
The case of the petitioner is that on account of Item No.1 and 2, the compounded interest has been charged, which is gross violation of the policy Annexure R-2/1, as Clause 3 of the policy provides that on delayed payment of ELC, the respondents can charge 15% simple interest and not the compounded interest. The said policy is in consonance with the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, rendered in Gian Inder Sharma Vs. Haryaba Urban Development Authority, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 297.
C.W.P. No.23992 of 2011 -3-
In view of the said legal and factual position, learned counsel for the respondents seek a short adjournment to have instructions and to re-calculate the interest in the demand notice, as per the said clause of the policy and the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court.
Adjourned to 13.03.2013 for arguments.”
Today, in pursuance of the above order, counsel for the respondents has placed on record the calculation of the amount which was due to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that if the amount is calculated according to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, than the respondents are liable to refund the amount of Rs.39,667/which was charged in excess by them and if the amount is recalculated as per the instructions issued vide Head Office Letter dated 23.6.2009, then the respondents are liable to refund Rs.30,697/-.
In view of the above, even if the case of the respondents is accepted then the respondents have charged Rs.30,697/- in excess in the month of December 2007. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents are liable to pay this amount with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date it was paid i.e. in December 2007.
C.W.P. No.23992 of 2011 -4-
In view of the said conceded position, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondents to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from December 2007 till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid within the said period, then the respondents are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
01.04.2013 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH ) reema JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether housing board was liable to refund excess interest charged on ELC advances contrary to policy and precedent.
Whether petitioner is entitled to interest on the refund amount at 15% per annum.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Inder Sharma Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 297Followed¶15
Y.L. Kapoor
State of Haryana
others
Satish Kumar Mittal
Amol Rattan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
