Avs International vs Mtnl & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 927 Del

24
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 4630/1993

      AVS INTERNATIONAL          ..... Petitioner
                     Through Mr.Sanjeev Soni, advocate.

                    versus

      MTNL & ORS                     ..... Respondents
                           Through Mr.Ayushmya Kumar, Mr.Vaibhav
                           Kalra, advocates.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                    ORDER

%                   17.02.2010

C.M. No. 5328/2008

1. The petitioner-M/s. AVS International is a partnership firm. The

partners are the sons of Mr. R.L. Moria.

2. Respondent-MTNL raised a demand of Rs.3,31,022/- against

telephone no. 692870 sanctioned and installed in the name of

Mr.R.L. Moria.

3. Acting under Rule 433 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, the

respondent-MTNL threatened the petitioner that their telephones

would be disconnected for non-payment of said dues.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed the present Writ Petition which

was disposed of vide Order dated 26th May, 2003. The Court noticed

that the arbitration proceedings were pending between Mr.R.L.Moria

and the respondent-MTNL. The petitioner by an interim order were

directed to deposit Rs.75,000/- with the respondent as a

WPC No.4630/1993 Page 1 precondition to avoid disconnection of their telephones. While

disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the

amount deposited by the petitioner would be refunded in case an

award is passed in favour of Mr.R.L.Moria.

5. By Award dated 2nd December, 2003, Mr.R.L.Moria was held

liable to pay Rs.20,000/- only and the balance demand was

quashed. Mr.R.L.Moria, however, filed a writ petition in this Court

and after examining the facts of the case, learned Single Judge by

Order dated 23rd April, 2007 reduced the demand to Rs.1000/- only

on the basis of prior and post billing period bills. Thus it was found

that demand of Rs.3,31,022/- raised by the respondent-MTNL was

unjustified and illegal. It is the allegation of the petitioner that it was

found that one of the employees of the respondent-MTNL had

indulged in wrongful acts and bills were wrongly raised against

Mr.R.L.Moria.

6. The amount of Rs.75,000/- deposited by the petitioner has

been refunded but the petitioner now claims interest on the said

amount. Respondent is a service provider and charges interest on

delayed payments from customers. In this case a wrong bill was

raised and the respondent-MTNL wanted to recover the said demand

from the petitioner. The petitioner was compelled to deposit

Rs.75,000/- and get a stay order to avoid disconnection. In all

fairness and equity, the respondent should pay interest on the

deposit made by the petitioner. Rs.75,000/- was utilized and

WPC No.4630/1993 Page 2 appropriated by respondent-MTNL for their purposes. Petitioner

should be compensated for the loss caused and their inability to

utilize Rs.75,000/-.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner had earlier filed C.M. No. 8886/2004 and request of the petitioner for interest was rejected. This is not correct. C.M. No.8886/2004 was disposed of vide Order dated 17th September, 2004, inter alia, holding that the Award was pending adjudication and had not yet become final and enforceable. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on Union of India versus Nirlon Synthetic Fibres & Chemicals Company (2001) 10 SCC 590. The said decision is distinguishable. In the said case, learned Single Judge had directed refund of the principal amount only and not interest. This order was allowed to become final. In the present case, I do not think it was the intention of the Court, while passing the Order dated 26th May, 2003, that the petitioner would not be entitled to interest in case the amount deposited by the petitioner was refunded.

8. Keeping in view the bank rate of interest prevailing during the

period in question, the petitioner is held entitled to simple interest

@ 7% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment was made. The

above interest will be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from

today.

Application is disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      FEBRUARY 17, 2010
      P




WPC No.4630/1993                                                       Page 3