Skip to content


Present: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Advocate for Vs. Municipal Corporation, PatialA................... - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Present: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Advocate for

Respondent

Municipal Corporation, PatialA...................

Excerpt:


.....the petitioner on 23.4.2010 which he did not opt to take. vide the impugned order dated 30.5.2011 (annexure p-16) a direction has been given to return the sum of `13,60,730/- in three equal instalments. the petitioner vide this writ petition is claiming interest on the delayed payment on the aforesaid amount which was lying with the respondent for about three years.the factual aspect has not been disputed in the reply filed by the respondent. there is no explanation in the written statement as to why the interest was not paid to the petitioner. this petition is being disposed of by giving a direction to the respondent-municipal corporation to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of `13,60,730/- to the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of release of the amount. this payment shall be made within three months. ( ritu bahri ) judge122.2014 rupi kaur rupinder 2014.02.18 16:51 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Judgment:


C.W.P.No.22318 of 2011 [ 1 ].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.22318 of 2011 Date of Decision:Feb.

12,2014 Jasbir Singh ...............................................Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Patiala..................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present: Mr.Ravinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Manu K.

Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent..RITU BAHRI, J.

(Oral) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure P-16).The petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No.16955/10 for directing the respondent to refund a sum of `13,60,730/-.

The claim of the petitioner for the said amount has been decided by this Court vide order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure P-16).Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.18 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P.No.22318 of 2011 [ 2 ].The petitioner was a successful bidder for plot No.6, near Kohli Sweets Tripuri which was allotted to him by the Municipal Corporation.

The possession could not be given to him.

An alternate site was also offered to the petitioner on 23.4.2010 which he did not opt to take.

Vide the impugned order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure P-16) a direction has been given to return the sum of `13,60,730/- in three equal instalments.

The petitioner vide this writ petition is claiming interest on the delayed payment on the aforesaid amount which was lying with the respondent for about three yeaRs.The factual aspect has not been disputed in the reply filed by the respondent.

There is no explanation in the written statement as to why the interest was not paid to the petitioner.

This petition is being disposed of by giving a direction to the respondent-Municipal Corporation to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of `13,60,730/- to the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of release of the amount.

This payment shall be made within three months.

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE122.2014 rupi Kaur Rupinder 2014.02.18 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //