Alka Singh vs Chairman Chandigarh Housing ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6066 P&H

152

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH


                                                  LPA-519-2022 (O&M)
                                                  DECIDED ON: 04.07.2022

DR. ALKA SINGH
                                                     ....APPELLANT

VS

CHAIRMAN CHANDIGARH HOUSING
BOARD AND OTHERS
                                                     ....RESPONDENTS



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:     Mr. Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Sr. Standing Counsel with
             Mr. Arjun Sharma, Advocate and
             Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate
             for respondent-Chandigarh Housing Board.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge dated 04.04.2022, whereby writ petition preferred by

respondent No.1 has been allowed to the extent of reducing the interest

component on 4% of the amount to be refunded, which was charged in

excess by respondent No.1 along with interest at the rate of 20% in favour of

the appellant, reducing it to 6%.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the

appellant has a grievance with regard to reduction of the interest, which was

granted to the appellant at the rate of 20% on the 4% amount, which was

charged over and above the 20%, which was provided for under the terms

1 of 3

LPA-519-2022 (O&M) -2-

and conditions of the contract, which was entered into between the appellant

and respondent No.1. He contends that the reduction of the said amount is

unjustified for the reason that the respondents have also charged interest

from the appellant at the rate of 20%. It was in these circumstances that the

Permanent Lok Adalat had granted the same interest, which has been

charged by respondent No.1. The equitable interest, therefore, as granted to

the appellant was fully justified and did not call for any interference by the

learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand has

supported the judgment passed by learned Single Judge by contending that

the interest, which has been granted at the rate of 20% has neither been

provided under the statutory provisions nor in the contractual terms which

have been entered into between the parties. Referring to Section 34 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended

that 6% interest, which has been granted by the learned Single Judge fulfills

the mandate of the statute and, therefore, cannot be said to be wrongly

granted.

We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and keeping in view the fact that there is no provision under the

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which would entitle the said authority

to grant interest at the rate, which has been so granted, the same has been

rightly reduced from 20% to 6%. The reasoning which has been sought to be

projected by the counsel for the appellant that the interest as charged by the

respondents has been granted to the appellant on the principle of tit for tat

cannot be accepted, unless the same is supported by some statutory

provisions.

                                      2 of 3

 LPA-519-2022 (O&M)                                                        -3-

In the present case, as far as the charging of interest, on the part

of respondent No.1 from the appellant, is concerned, the same was based

upon the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, which has been

accepted by the appellant and, therefore, binding between the parties. Since,

there is no provision for grant of interest at the rate of 20%, the order as has

been passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is not sustainable in law. The

reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge, in any case, is based upon

proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the

legal position requiring no interference by this Court in the present appeal.

In the light of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal

and the same, therefore, stands dismissed.

                                         (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
                                                 JUDGE



                                                (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
04.07.2022                                           JUDGE
poonam negi

Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                       3 of 3