Dismissed

M/S Sud Industries Dehradun v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Jul 2022WPMS/1067/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking 24% interest on refunded stamp duty was dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that without an agreement, the phenomenon falls outside writ jurisdiction, and the remedy lies in a civil court for money recovery.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a money claim petition in the competent civil court for recovery of claimed amounts.

M/S Sud Industries Dehradun Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			WPMS No. 1067 of 2019 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
			Shri D. S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V. D. Bisen, learned Brief Holder for the State. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay 24% interest per annum on the value of the FDR of Rs. 5,86,385/- which has been encashed illegally by the respondent from the date of FDR till the actual receipt of the payment, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.” It is brought to our notice that petitioner has deposited several FDRs with the different Divisional Forest Officers in the Uttarakhand viz. respondent no. 3 to 9 towards stamp duty but later on vide order dated 17.05.2014 the Chief Conservator of Forest directed the respondents to refund the excess amount of stamp duty paid. Accordingly, excess stamp duty paid by the petitioner has been refunded. Now, petitioner claims 24% interest on the said refunded amount. Admittedly, there is no agreement between the parties regarding any interest to be paid in excess deposit made by the petitioner. Respondents do not admit that any part of the claim is due for payment to the petitioner. Moreover, if any money is due towards respondents, petitioner may file money claim petition before the competent court for recovery of the same. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶2

disp	All the osed of.	pending applications	stand
SKS		(Sanjaya Kumar Mis 08.07.2022	hra, J.)

M/S Sud Industries Dehradun v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sud Industries Dehradun v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Godhan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary

Sajid Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Home) Affairs Dehradun

Pramila Vs District Magistrate Haridwar

Dhananjay Singh Vs G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology

Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate

Smt. Rama Devi Vs Mohan Chandra Joshi