Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1042 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Tarun Sharma

2010-04-29

KISHORE K.MANDAL, SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Learned counsel for the appellants presses I. A. No.569 of 2007, which is in the nature of amendment of pleadings, praying therein that the present appellants may be permitted to challenge the order dated 26.5.2005 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Single judge, in CWJC No.688 of 2005. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the same. The statements made in this interlocutory application shall form part of the memo of appeal, and the appellants are permitted to challenge the validity of the order dated 26.5.2005, passed in CWJC No.688 of 2005. I. A. No.569 of 2007 is accordingly disposed of. 2. Learned counsel for the parties submits in one voice that the pleadings are already complete, there is no need for further adjournment, and the matter may be finally heard and disposed of. 3. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High court of Judicature at Patna, is directed against the order dated 26.05.2005, passed in CWJC No.688 of 2005, and the order dated 11.05.2006, passed in Civil Review No.227 of 2005. 4. The respondent is engaged in the business of forwarding agents. The goods in question were made over to him by the consignor at Biratnagar (Nepal) to be delivered to M/s Rajendra trading Co. Mumbai, the consignee. During the course of journey, the customs authorities seized the goods on 15.06.2002. The confiscation proceeding was decided against the respondent by order dated 31.03.2003, and the goods were auction sold for Rs.3,66,930/-. The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed, and the authorities were directed to return the confiscated goods. The respondent thereafter learnt that the goods had already been auction sold, leading to the said CWJC No.688 of 2005. The case of the respondent herein (the writ petitioner), throughout has been that the confiscated goods were really valued at Rs.5,81,434/-, whereas the same was sold for a paltry amount of Rs.3,66,930/-. He, therefore, prayed for refund of a sum of Rs.5,81,434/-along with interest. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and directed refund of a sum of Rs.5,81,434/-with interest at the rate of 12%. 5. He, therefore, prayed for refund of a sum of Rs.5,81,434/-along with interest. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and directed refund of a sum of Rs.5,81,434/-with interest at the rate of 12%. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned writ Court, the appellants herein preferred the aforesaid Civil Review No.227 of 2005, which has been rejected by order dated 11.05.2006, and the authorities have been directed to refund the said sum of Rs.5,81,434/-, along with interest at the rate of 12%, from the date of confiscation till the date of payment. It is relevant to state that the order has been implemented and the entire payment has been made to the respondent. 6. While assailing the validity of the order of the learned writ court and on the review petition, learned counsel for the appellants raises a number of grievances. He submits that at best a sum of Rs.3,66,930/- should have been directed to be paid to the respondent along with statutory interest. He submits in the same vein that payment of interest at such a high rate amounts to rewarding an illegal activity. 7. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the learned writ Court after complete discussion of the issue, came to the conclusion that the respondent herein is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,81,434/-. This was indeed quantifying the money value of the goods in question, and the respondents appeal before the Tribunal had been allowed. We, therefore, do not wish to interfere with this part of the order of the learned Single Judge. However, we do not agree with fairly high rate of interest granted to the respondent. It appears to us that, in the facts and circumstances of the case it should have been granted at the lower rate, inter alia, for the reasons that the order of the tribunal was passed on 20.01.2004, whereas the writ petition was lodged in this Court on 13.01.2005, after a delay of one year. No explanation is discernible from the order of the learned writ Court or on the review petition, nor any explanation has been offered before us, explaining the delay of one year in preferring the writ petition. No explanation is discernible from the order of the learned writ Court or on the review petition, nor any explanation has been offered before us, explaining the delay of one year in preferring the writ petition. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we reduce the rate of interest to 6% with effect from the date of seizure of goods to the date of payment. The respondent shall return to the authorities within a period of four weeks, the excess amount paid to him with interest @ 6% for the period he retained the same. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.