Case Law Details
Sulaihar Vs Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Since the petition against Enforcement Directorate towards claiming of interest under section 42(3) of FERA towards seized travellers cheques was filed more than 9 years after receiving the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800 without providing of any reasonable explanation for the delay, therefore, the same was liable to be rejected solely on the ground of laches.
Held: Travellers cheques for a total of UK pounds 2000 were seized from assessee’s house by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. The confiscation was upheld in the adjudication proceedings of the Enforcement Directorate and the proceedings of the Appellate Board. Thereafter, the confiscation of UK pounds 1800 was set aside by order and, therefore, ED was directed to refund the value of UK Pounds 1800. Both parties also agree that the said order dated 26.11.1999 attained finality. Pursuant thereto, ED enclosed a refund bill for Rs.32,371/- on 11.02.2000. Upon receipt of the said bill, assessee signed the claim bill for Rs.32,371/-without prejudice to the right to claim interest at 15% per annum on the said amount from the date of confiscation till the date of receipt of the rupee value thereof. The main ground on which assessee claimed interest was that the present case was one of unlawful confiscation and, therefore, Section 42(3) would apply and the Enforcement Directorate was under a statutory liability to pay interest at 6% per annum. It was held that assessee received a sum of Rs.32,371/- from ED on 16.03.2000. Prior to that, by letter dated 18.02.2000, assessee put the ED on notice that she was receiving the said sum without prejudice to her right to claim interest. Thereafter, the present writ petition claiming interest was filed on or about 28.08.2009. Thus, it was clear that the writ petition was filed more than 9 years after receiving the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800. If assessee had filed a suit to recover interest, such suit would have been rejected in limine on the ground of limitation. A public law remedy is discretionary and, in the overall facts and circumstances, including the complete failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the writ petition was liable to be rejected solely on the ground of laches.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
A sum of Rs.32,371/- was paid to the Petitioner on 16.03.2000 as the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800, which was seized from the Petitioner’s house on 16.08.1974. The present writ petition is filed for a direction to the Respondents to pay interest on Rs.32,371/- at 15% per annum from the date of seizure (16.08.1974) till the date of payment of the rupee value thereof (16.03.2000) or, in the alternative, to pay a sum of Rs.94,259/-, which is the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800 as on 16.03.2000 after setting-off the sum of Rs.32,371/- which was paid on 16.03.2000.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
