Full Judgment Text
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No.23327/2022(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KALYANAMURTHY. K.,
S/O KODANDA RAMACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.355,
SADASHIVA NAGAR,
ATTIBELE,
BENGALURU 562 107.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.V. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
ND
2 FLOOR,
STATE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING,
(MYSORE BANK CIRCLE),
ST
1 BLOCK, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 009.
…RESPONDENT
(BY MS. CHITHRA NIRMALA P., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REQUISITION OF THE
PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-J DATED 20.07.2022
CONSEQUENTLY TO REFUND OF Rs.31,73,750/-(RUPEES THIRTY
2
ONE LAKHS SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND
FIFTY ONLY), TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.12.2023, THIS DAY THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
mandamus
This petition seeking to the respondent to
refund a sum of Rs.31,73,750/- forfeited due to non-
compliance of conditions of Sale Notice dated 16.12.2021,
Annexure-B.
2. Brief facts:
The respondent issued statutory notice for sale
under Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for
short 'Rules') for sale of immovable property bearing Site
No.43, Katha No.195/1/06, Property No.106, II Block,
Dasappa Layout, Kowdenahalli, Ramamurthy Nagar,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. In terms of the sale notice,
auction was held on 08.12.2021. The petitioner
participated in the auction and declared successful bidder
with highest quoted amount of Rs.86,95,000/-. The
petitioner deposited 25% in compliance of the terms and
3
conditions of e-auction. As per the conditions of the
auction, 75% of the sale price is to be deposited on or
th
before 15 day of confirmation of sale or within such
extended period. Sale confirmation is on 16.12.2021.
Fifteen days to make payment of 75% expires on
31.12.2021.
3. Rule 9 of the Rules provides for extension of time as
agreed between the parties with an outer limit of extension
not exceeding three months. The petitioner by letter
dated 29.12.2021 made a request for extension to make
payment till 20.01.2022. Time was extended by the
respondent accordingly. On 20.01.2022, further extension
was requested till 20.02.2022. The respondent accepted
and extended the time accordingly. As there was no
response subsequent to extension of time till 20.02.2022,
the respondent issued letter dated 04.03.2022 requesting
the petitioner to make payment of the difference amount
on or before 08.03.2022. The letter further indicated,
4
failure to pay the amount would result in forfeiture of
amount already paid.
4. The petitioner through e-mail dated 08.03.2022
requested two weeks' time to make the payment on the
ground that he is suffering from age related health issues
and hence not able to pay the remaining amount within
the stipulated time.
5. The respondent by letter dated 16.03.2022
addressed to the petitioner forfeited the amount of
Rs.31,73,750/- for failure to comply with the terms and
conditions of auction in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules.
6. Sri.D.V.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has deposited a sum of
Rs.31,73,750/- and deposit of 25% stands complied with.
Remaining amount of Rs.55,21,250/- was not deposited
within the extended period as agreed by the respondent in
view of financial difficulties due to Covid-19 pandemic.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was
5
suffering from Kidney disease and was undergoing
treatment. In support of his contention has filed medical
records along with memo dated 04.12.2023. The bid
amount offered by the petitioner was Rs.86,95,000/-. In
view of cancellation of auction, the property has been re-
auctioned and has been sold for a sum of Rs.87,79,000/-.
There is no financial loss caused to the respondent.
Forfeiture of amount paid by the petitioner would amount
to unjust enrichment. On the above submissions prays
for direction to the respondent to release the forfeited
amount.
7. Miss Chithra Nirmala P., learned counsel appearing
for the respondent submits that the entire procedure and
discretion of the Bank has been provided under Rule 9 of
the Rules. The petitioner has been provided with extension
to the outer limit provided under Rule 9 of the Rules. In
view of failure to comply with the terms and conditions of
the auction, order of forfeiture has been rightly made
which is in conformity with Rule 9(5) of the Rules. Merely
6
because property has been sold subsequently for a higher
price would not entitle the petitioner to seek refund of
forfeited amount. In support of her contention, she places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Authorised Officer, State Bank of India vs.
1
C. Natarajan and another .
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused
the records.
9. On consideration of the pleadings, submissions,
relevant provision and records, the following questions
would arise for consideration;
i) Whether forfeiture of deposit by the
Authorized Officer is justified?
ii) Whether forfeiture of deposit in excess of
25% is justified in view of Rule 9 of the
Rules?
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 510
7
10. There is no dispute regarding payment of
Rs.31,73,750/- by the petitioner between 10.12.2021 to
29.12.2021. Further no dispute regarding the total
consideration agreed by the petitioner at Rs.86,95,000/-
as a successful bidder. The petitioner has paid 10% of the
reserve price within the stipulated time. The auction has
been held on 08.12.2021. Sale confirmation has been
made on 16.12.2021. The required deposit of 25% has
been deposited within the stipulated time.
11. Sale of secured asset and procedure for sale through
auction is in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules. Rule 9 of the
Rules reads as under:
" 9 . Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and
delivery of possession, etc. - [(1) No sale of
immovable property under these rules, in first
instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty
days from the date on which the public notice of
sale is published in newspapers as referred to in
the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of
sale has been served to the borrower:
8
Provided further that if sale of immovable property
by any one of the methods specified by sub rule (5)
of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted
again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and
publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days
to the borrower, for any subsequent sale.]
(2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the
purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in
his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the
authorized officer and shall be subject to
confirmation by the secured creditor:
Provided that no sale under this rule shall be
confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is
less than the reserve price, specified under sub-
rule (5) of [rule 8]:
Provided further that if the authorized officer fails
to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he
may, with the consent of the borrower and the
secured creditor effect the sale at such price.
[(3) On every sale of immovable property, the
purchaser shall immediately, i.e. on the same day
or not later than next working day, as the case
may be, pay a deposit of twenty five per cent. of
the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of
earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorized
officer conducting the sale and in default of such
deposit, the property shall be sold again;]
9
(4) The balance amount of purchase price payable
shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized
officer on or before the fifteenth day of
confirmation of sale of the immovable property or
such extended period [as may be agreed upon in
writing between the purchaser and the secured
creditor, in any case not exceeding three months].
(5) In default of payment within the period
mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be
forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the property
shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall
forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the
sum for which it may be subsequently sold.
(6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor
and if the terms of payment have been complied
with, the authorized officer exercising the power of
sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the
immovable property in favour of the purchaser in
the Form given in Appendix V to these rules.
(7) Where the immovable property sold is subject
to any encumbrances, the authorized officer may, if
he thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with
him the money required to discharge the
encumbrances and any interest due thereon
together with such additional amount that may be
sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost,
10
expenses and interest as may be determined by
him;
[Provided that if after meeting the cost of
removing encumbrances and contingencies is any
surplus available out of the money deposited by
the purchaser such surplus shall be paid to the
purchaser within fifteen days from the date of
finalization of the sale.]
(8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the
encumbrances, the authorized officer [shall] may
issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the
persons interested in or entitled to the money
deposited with him and take steps to make the
payment accordingly.
(9) The authorized officer shall deliver the property
to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to
the secured creditor on deposit of money as
specified in sub-rule (7) above.
(10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule
(6) shall specifically mention that whether the
purchaser has purchased the immovable secured
asset free from any encumbrances known to the
secured creditor or not."
12. On bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, Rule
9(4) of the Rules provides for payment of balance amount
11
th
of 75% of purchase price on or before 15 day of
confirmation of sale. The period of fifteen days is on or
before 31.12.2021. Further sub-rule (4) to Rule 9 of the
Rules provides for extension of said period of 15 days on
mutual agreement in writing between the purchaser and
secured creditor. However, such extended period cannot
exceed three months. In the present case, extension
provided is up-to three months, outer limit provided under
Rule 9(4) of the Rules. In view of statutory bar, the
respondent has no authority to extend time for making
payment exceeding three months.
13. Rule 9(5) of the Rules provides for consequences of
failure to deposit within the period mentioned in sub-rule
(4). The failure to make payment would follow forfeiture
of the deposit in favour of the secured creditor and
authorizes the secured creditor to re-sell the property.
14. On perusal of sub-rules (3) (4) and (5) of Rule 9 of
the Rules, the discretion conferred on the respondent
secured creditor is only to the limited extent of extension
12
to make payment not exceeding three months. As the
Rules provide for extent of benefit to the auction purchaser
and discretion of the secured creditor, forfeiture by the
respondent cannot be said to be in violation of Rule 9 of
the Rules or as arbitrary. The power of forfeiture under
sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the Rules is statutorily conferred.
Hence, there is no scope for judicial review.
15. The petitioner has not placed any material to
demonstrate fund flow to make the remaining payment
either during the extended period or as on the date of this
petition to show bona fides . Even the medical records
placed by the petitioner are relatable to October 2022 i.e.
subsequent to forfeiture. Hence, has no relevance to the
case.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Authorized Officer, State Bank of India
(supra) has
held as under:
"18.
Having regard to the terms of rule 9, the
notice for auction constitutes the ‘invitation to
13
offer’; the bids submitted by the bidders constitute
the ‘offer’ and upon confirmation of sale in favour
of the highest bidder under sub-rule (2) of rule 9,
the contract comes into existence. Once the
contract comes into existence, the bidder is bound
to honour the terms of the statute under which the
auction is conducted and suffer consequences for
breach, if any, as stipulated. Rule 9(5) legislatively
lays down a penal consequence. ‘Forfeiture’
referred to in sub-rule (5) of rule 9, in the setting
of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, has to be
construed as denoting a penalty that the defaulting
bidder must suffer should he fail to make payment
of the entire sale price within the period allowed to
him by the authorized officer of a secured creditor.
19.
Though it is true that the power conferred by
sub-rule (5) of rule 9 of the Rules ought not to be
exercised indiscriminately without having due
regard to all relevant facts and circumstances, yet,
the said sub-rule ought also not be read in a
manner so as to render its existence only on paper.
Drawing from our experience on the Bench, it can
safely be observed that in many a case the
borrowers themselves, seeking to frustrate auction
sales, use their own henchmen as intending
purchasers to participate in the auction but
thereafter they do not choose to carry forward the
14
transactions citing issues which are hardly tenable.
This leads to auctions being aborted and issuance
of fresh notices. Repetition of such a process of
participation-withdrawal for a couple of times or
more has the undesirable effect of rigging of the
valuation of the immovable property. In such
cases, the only perceivable loss suffered by a
secured creditor would seem to be the extent of
expenses incurred by it in putting up the
immovable property for sale. However, what does
generally escape notice in the process is that it is
the mischievous borrower who steals a march over
the secured creditor by managing to have a highly
valuable property purchased by one of its
henchmen for a song, thus getting such property
freed from the clutches of mortgage and by diluting
the security cover which the secured creditor had
for its loan exposure. Bearing in mind such stark
reality, sub-rule (5) of rule 9 cannot but be
interpreted pragmatically to serve twin purposes —
first, to facilitate due enforcement of security
interest by the secured creditor (one of the objects
of the SARFAESI Act); and second, to prohibit
wrong doers from being benefited by a liberal
construction thereof."
"28.
Also, the terms of the auction notice made it
clear that the auction sale would be conducted in
15
terms of the provisions contained in the SARFAESI
Act. All prospective bidders were, therefore, put on
guard as to what could follow in case of a default or
neglect. Notwithstanding the proceedings that were
initiated before the DRT by Stallion of which the
contesting respondent became aware on
th
10 October, 2017, nothing prevented him from
making full payment of the balance amount and
have the sale certificate issued in his favour. It can
be inferred from the facts and circumstances that
the contesting respondent was seeking to buy time.
Counsel for the contesting respondent has not
shown how the Authorized Officer acted in
derogation of the statute. Indeed, it was open to
the Authorized Officer to extend the time further;
equally, he was also free not to grant further
extension having regard to the conduct of the
contesting respondent. When two options are
legally open to be exercised in a given set of facts
and circumstances and one option is exercised,
which does not appear to be wholly unreasonable,
it is not for the writ court to find fault on the
specious ground that the secured creditor has not
suffered any financial loss. That such creditor had
not suffered financial loss cannot be the sole
determinative factor in view of the special law that
the SARFAESI Act is. …"
16
17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case referred to supra and applying the same
to the facts of the present case, it is not open to the
petitioner to seek refund of the forfeited amount on the
ground that the property has been re-sold at a higher
price. Petitioner has not placed any evidence to
demonstrate flow of funds to demonstrate his genuine
attempt to make payment of the remaining amount.
As forfeiture is statutory action, in view of non-compliance
of Rule 9(4) of the Rules leaving no discretion with the
secured creditor, forfeiture is just and proper. In view of
the above, the health condition of the petitioner in not
making the payment would be irrelevant while examining
correctness of forfeiture under Rule 9(5) of the Rules.
18. Insofar as the hardship claimed by the petitioner, the
same has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the judgment referred to supra which reads as under;
37.
The question under consideration can also be
addressed from a different perspective. In the
present case, the Authorized Officer had adhered to
17
the statutory rules. If by such adherence any
amount is required to be forfeited as a
consequence, the same cannot be scrutinized
wearing the glasses of misplaced sympathy. Law is
well settled that a result flowing from a statutory
provision is never an evil and that a court has no
power to ignore that provision to relieve what it
considers a distress resulting from its operation.
The statute must, of course, be given effect to
whether a court likes the result or not. This is the
statement of law in the decision of this Court
in Martin Burn Ltd v. The Corporation of Calcutta.
19. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled for refund
even on the ground of hardship. Such a ground is also not
available to the default auction purchaser. First question is
answered accordingly.
20. While examining the second question, the following
aspects need to be considered.
21. Total undisputed bid amount is Rs.86,95,000/-. The
petitioner has paid EMD of Rs.6,79,500/- and
18
Rs.14,94,250/- on 10.12.2021 which constituted 25% of
the bid amount as per the terms and conditions of sale.
22. The petitioner was entitled to seek extension by 90
days in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, which has been
extended in the present case. Rule 9(3) of the Rules
provides for deposit of 25% of the sale price. Rule 9(4) of
the Rules refers to balance amount of purchase price and
extension of period for making the said balance purchase
price. Rule 9(5) of the Rules provides for forfeiture of the
deposit in default of payment under sub-rule (4).
23. Oxford Dictionary defines 'DEPOSIT' as:
" A sum payable as a first installment on the
purchase of something or as a pledge for a
contract, the balance being payable later."
Wharton's Law Lexicon defines 'DEPOSIT' as:
"In the case of contracts, for sale of land, a
deposit is regarded, not only as a part
payment of the purchase money, but also as a
19
guarantee that the contract shall be completed
by the purchaser, and may be forfeited, if he
make default."
Cambridge Dictionary defines 'DEPOSIT' as:
" A deposit is also a sum of money that is
given in advance as part of a total payment for
something."
" An amount of money that you pay as the first
part of the total payment for something."
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shree
Hanuman Cotton Mills and others vs. Tata Aircraft
Limited in (1969) 3 SCC 522, has held as follows;
" 17. Regarding “deposit”, the author states at
p. 946, that a deposit is not recoverable by the
buyer, for a deposit is a guarantee that the
buyer shall perform his contract and is
forfeited on his failure to do so and if a
contract distinguishes between the deposit and
instalments of price and the buyer is in default,
the deposit is forfeited.
20
18. Halsbury, in Laws of England, Vol. 34, 3
Edn., in para 189 at p. 118, dealing with
deposit, states:
“Part of the price may be payable as a
deposit. Apart payment is to be distinguished
from a deposit or earnest.
A deposit is paid primarily as security that
the buyer will duly accept and pay for the
goods, but, subject thereto, forms part of the
price. Accordingly, if the buyer is unable or
unwilling to accept and pay for the goods, the
seller may repudiate the contract and retain
the deposit.”
Earl Jowitt, in his Dictionary of English
Law says:
“Giving an earnest or earnest-money is a
mode of signifying assent to a contract of sale
or the like, by giving to the vendor a nominal
sum (e.g., a shilling) as a token that the
parties are in earnest or have made up their
minds.”
19. In Hove v. Smith [LR (1884) Ch D 89] Fry,
L.J., discussed the history of “earnest”, which
is identical with a deposit. In that case, the
21
plaintiff agreed to purchase a property for the
price mentioned in the agreement and paid
£500 on the signing of the agreement “as a
deposit and in part payment of the purchase-
money”. There were other stipulations in the
agreement regarding title to the property and
the payment of the balance of the purchase
money. The plaintiff, apprehending that the
defendant-vendor would re-sell the property,
brought an action against him for specific
performance of the agreement; but the suit
was dismissed on the ground that there had
been inordinate delay on the plaintiff's part in
insisting on the completion of the contract. The
plaintiff appealed. Before the Court of Appeal a
request was made on his behalf for leave to
amend the plaint that if specific performance
could not be decreed, he should get a return of
the deposit of £500. Leave was granted by the
appellate court and the question hence arose
as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to get a
refund of the said amount. In dealing with the
deposit claimed back by the plaintiff. Cotton,
L.J., at p. 95, observes:
22
“What is the deposit? The deposit, as I
understand it, and using the words of Lord
Justice James (in LR 10 Ch 512), is a
guarantee that the contract shall be
performed. If the sale goes on, of course, not
only in accordance with the words of the
contract, but in accordance with the intention
of the parties in making the contract, it goes in
part payment of the purchase money for which
it is deposited; but if on the default of the
purchaser the contract goes off, that is to say,
if he repudiates the contract, then, according
to Lord Justice James, he can have no right to
recover the deposit.”
Bowen, L.J., at p. 98, states:
“We have therefore to consider what in
ordinary parlance, and as used in an ordinary
contract of sale, is the meaning which business
persons would attach to the term ‘deposit’.
Without going at length into the history, or
accepting all that has been said or will be said
by the other members of the Court on that
point, it comes shortly to this, that a deposit, if
nothing more is said about it, is according to
the ordinary interpretation of businessmen, a
23
security for the completion of the purchase.
But in what sense is it a security for the
completion of the purchase? It is quite certain
that the purchaser cannot insist on abandoning
his contract and yet recover the deposit,
because that would be to enable him to take
advantage of his own wrong.”
Fry, L.J., at p. 101, observes:
“Money paid as a deposit must, I conceive,
be paid on some terms implied or expressed.
In this case no terms are expressed, and we
must therefore inquire what terms are to be
implied. The terms most naturally to be implied
appear to me in the case of money paid on the
signing of a contract to be that in the event of
the contract being performed it shall be
brought into account, but if the contract is not
performed by the payer it shall remain the
property of the payee. It is not merely a part
payment, but is then also an earnest to bind
the bargain so entered into, and creates by the
fear of its forfeiture a motive in the payer to
perform the rest of the contract.”
24
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal rejected the
claim of the plaintiff for refund of the deposit.
20.
In Soper v. Arnold [LR (1889) 13 AC 429]
the House of Lords had to consider the right of
the plaintiff therein to claim a refund of the
deposit made by him. In that case the plaintiff
had contracted to purchase a piece of land and
entered into an agreement with the vendee.
The agreement provided that the purchaser
viz. the plaintiff, should make a deposit and it
further provided that if the vendee failed to
comply with the conditions, the deposit should
be forfeited. The plaintiff, accordingly, paid the
deposit but as he was not in a position to
complete the contract by paying the balance
purchase money, the contract could not be
fulfilled. When in another litigation it was
subsequently found that the vendor's title to
the property was defective, the plaintiff
brought an action to recover his deposit on the
ground of mistake and failure of consideration.
The suit was dismissed and the Court of Appeal
also confirmed the said decision. The House of
Lords also finally rejected the plaintiff's claim.
In discussing the nature of the deposit made
25
by the plaintiff under the agreement. Lord
Macnaghten at p. 435 observes:
“The deposit serves two purposes — if the
purchase is carried out it goes against the
purchase-money — but its primary purpose is
this, it is a guarantee that the purchaser
means business; and if there is a case in which
a deposit is rightly and properly forfeited it is, I
think, when a man enters into a contract to
buy real property without taking the trouble to
consider whether he can pay for it or not.”
… …"
"21.
From a review of the decisions cited
above, the following principles emerge
regarding “earnest”:
“(1) It must be given at the moment at
which the contract is concluded.
(2) It represents a guarantee that the
contract will be fulfilled or, in other words,
‘earnest’ is given to bind the contract.
(3) It is part of the purchase price when
that transaction is carried out.
26
(4) It is forfeited when the transaction falls
through by reason of the default or failure of
the purchaser.
(5) Unless there is anything to the contrary
in the terms of the contract, on default
committed by the buyer, the seller is entitled
to forfeit the earnest.”
25. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment referred to supra, the amount paid
under Rule 9(3) of the Rules to the extent of 25% can be
characterized as a deposit and payment over and above
25% is only a balance consideration.
26. In view of the above, any amount in excess of 25%
would not constitute or retain the character of Deposit.
Any payment beyond 25% would only be balance amount
and cannot be considered as DEPOSIT.
27. On overall reading of sub-rule (3) (4) and (5),
forfeiture of deposit contemplated under sub-rule (5) is
only to the extent of deposit of 25% contemplated under
sub-rule (3). Hence, any violation enabling the respondent
27
to forfeit is only to the extent of amount referred to in sub-
rule (3) i.e. 25%.
28. The petitioner has made a payment of
Rs.31,73,750/-. 25% of the total bid amount is
Rs.21,73,750/-. Payment of Rs.10,00,000/- is in excess
of 25% of the bid amount referred to in Rule 9 of the
Rules. Sum of Rs.10,00,000/- cannot be considered as
deposit under sub-rule (3) and (4) enabling the respondent
to forfeit under sub-rule (5). The petitioner is entitled to
refund of payment made in excess of 25 % of the total bid
amount. Any retention of amount by the respondent
without authority of law would amount to unjust
enrichment. In the present case, the excess amount is
Rs.10,00,000/-. Second question is answered
accordingly.
29. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the
petition succeeds in-part. Hence the following:
28
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed in-part.
ii) Order/Letter of forfeiture dated
16.03.2022 at Annexure-H is
unsustainable to the extent of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
iii) Respondent is directed to refund a sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- along with applicable
interest from the date of payment till
refund, expeditiously not later than
eight weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mv