Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Absence of Policy to Withhold Refund Leaves No Room for Doubt Petitioner is Entitled to Refund: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has ordered the refund of Rs. 2,57,405/- to Pradip Kolhe, a Christian religious leader, after his event was canceled due to the refusal of police permission. The court emphasized that withholding the deposit without legal grounds amounts to unjust enrichment and violates constitutional rights.

The petitioner, Pradip Kolhe, had planned to organize “Mumbai Shanti Mohotsav 2022 – A Prayer Meet” at the MMRDA Grounds in Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai. Following the standard procedure, he deposited Rs. 2,57,405/- as temporary Non-Agricultural charges with the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), along with other fees to various authorities. The event was canceled after the Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station refused to grant permission. Despite refunds from other authorities, the SDO withheld the deposit, prompting Kolhe to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Absence of Forfeiture Provision: The court highlighted that there was no provision for forfeiture of the deposit in the event of the event’s cancellation. “A refund would obviously be an entitlement of the Petitioner commonsensically. A forfeiture of such amounts would clearly and unambiguously amount to unjust enrichment in the hands of the Respondents,” the bench remarked.

Violation of Constitutional Rights: The court noted that the refusal to refund violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. The bench held that withholding the deposit without legal basis was an infringement on fundamental rights.

The judgment discussed the principles of unjust enrichment and the legal obligation of authorities to refund amounts collected without authorization. The court referenced several precedents, including the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation vs. Union of India case, to support its decision. “The absence of any such term or condition in the application/contract/agreement, or statutory provision or circular would clearly disentitle the Respondents to withhold or forfeit the amounts received for permissions sought to conduct an event,” the court stated.

Justice Kamal Khata remarked, “The absence of any policy or statutory provision to withhold the refund leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner is entitled to the refund.”

Interest on Refunded Amounts: While acknowledging the petitioner’s entitlement to interest on the withheld amount, the court noted that the petitioner’s counsel did not press for interest due to its insignificance. However, the court recognized interest as a normal accretion on capital, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India.

The Bombay High Court’s decision mandates the immediate refund of the deposited amount, reinforcing the principle that authorities cannot withhold funds without clear legal justification. This judgment is expected to set a significant precedent, ensuring that public authorities adhere to legal and constitutional mandates when handling deposits and refunds.

Date of Decision:16th May 2024

Pradip vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Similar News