Sharmistha Chaudhuri vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3396 Cal

24.06.2021 TN

CO No.1131 of 2021

(Via video conference)

Sharmistha Chaudhuri Vs.

The Life Insurance Corporation of India and another

Mr. K. Thaker, Mr. Chayan Gupta, Mr. Souvik Kundu .... for the petitioner

Ms. Sanjukta Roy,

.... for the opposite parties

As argued by learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, the appellate court below acted

without jurisdiction in imposing interest on the

payment, which was to be made as a condition for

stay, at the behest of the opposite parties. Learned

counsel for the petitioner reiterates his previous

submission that, in view of Special Bench

judgments of this court, as extended from time to

time, relaxation has been granted even in respect of

making conditional payments during the Covid-19

period starting from March, 2020 onwards. As

such, it is argued that no interest ought to be

charged for the lapses in payment during the said

period.

That apart, the petitioner's original argument

remains, which is that there was no default on the

part of the petitioner in non-encashment of the

cheque, which was deposited by the petitioner for a

previous period within the stipulated time.

The said contentions are controverted by

learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

Upon hearing both sides, it is evident from

the records that the cheque-in-question, a copy of

which has been annexed to the instant revisional

application, ex facie shows no discrepancy between

the amounts written in figures and in words

respectively. Hence, the contention of the opposite

parties that the cheque was dishonoured by the

concerned Bank on the ground of such alleged

discrepancy, cannot hold water. Rather, even

without casting any stigma on the LIC, since there

was apparently no fault on the part of the LIC also

in non-encashment of the cheque, it can very well

be seen that there was no default at least on the

part of the petitioner which could prompt the

opposite parties to oust the petitioner from

possession of the suit property on the pretext of

contravention of the condition for stay as stipulated

by the trial court.

As regards the subsequent defaults regarding

payment of current occupation charges, learned

counsel for the petitioner is justified in contending

that, in view of the relaxation granted by the Larger

Bench even in respect of payments as conditions

for stay, it was not mandatory for the petitioner to

make the payments during the pandemic period.

Hence, there cannot be any justification for

unnecessarily imposing the burden of interest on

the petitioner for non-payment of current

occupation charges during the Covid-19 period,

since such an imposition would go against the

grain of the relaxation granted by the Larger Bench.

In such view of the matter, CO No. 1131 of

2021 is disposed of by directing the petitioner to

pay Rs.1,83,600/- in lieu of default of payment of

occupation charges from April, 2020 to March

2021, along with Rs.5,53,887/-, which was the

amount covered by the cheque, which was

dishonoured for no fault of either of the parties,

totalling to the amount of Rs.7,37,487/-, within

one month from date to the opposite parties.

Thereafter, the petitioner shall carry on paying

occupation charges, as directed by the appellate

court as a condition of stay, within the stipulated

period regularly each month to the opposite parties.

The current occupation charges shall be paid for

each month within the 15th day of the succeeding

month at the rate of Rs.15,300/- per month. The

first of such installments shall be paid by the

petitioner by September 15, 2021, as occupation

charges for the month of August, 2021.

Immediately upon clearance of the said dues

of Rs.7,37,487/- by the petitioner to the opposite

parties, the opposite parties shall restore

possession of the property-in-suit in favour of the

petitioner, at the most within three days after

completion of the payment.

The above directions are peremptory.

It is further clarified that, in the event of

subsequent defaults of the petitioner in payment of

current occupational charges, it will be open to the

opposite parties to approach the appellate court for

appropriate orders for vacating the stay. The

parties as well as the appellate court below shall

act on the communication of the learned advocates

for the parties and/or server copy of this order

without insisting upon prior production of a

certified copy.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this

order, if applied for, be made available to the

parties upon compliance with the requisite

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)