Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

Supreme Court Ordered to DDA Pay Interest on Refund

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, September 6, 2023 – In a significant ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court of India disposed of civil appeals concerning the claim for payment of interest on amounts refunded by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The appeals were filed by charitable institutions that had deposited amounts with the DDA for availing additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) benefits.

The bench, consisting of Justices A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, stated, "Appeals disposed of without any order as to costs," leaving the appellants free to initiate separate proceedings for claiming interest for the period of retention of their deposits.

The appellants had initially challenged DDA notifications in the Delhi High Court, which had granted them interim relief, allowing them to deposit disputed amounts and proceed with construction. The High Court had indicated that the question of refund with interest would be examined later. However, the High Court eventually directed the refund of the deposited amounts without interest.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court observed, "In the present facts as on the date when the writ petition was filed and the petitioner had voluntarily offered to deposit the amount, the amount was to be paid and recoverable under the notification dated 10.10.2008 and 23.12.2008 if the benefit of additional FAR was to be availed."

The Court also noted that the principles of restitution and 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' were not applicable in this case. "When there was no adjudication and determination with regard to the right of the appellant and a declaration that the amount was illegally demanded and retained by the respondent, either the direction to pay interest or to compensate in any other manner for the pendente lite period would not arise," the Court added.

Date of Decision: September 05, 2023

Lal Bahadur Shastri Educational Society & Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.         

Latest Legal News