Telangana High Court
Srib.M. Malani, Hyd. vs Commr. Of I.T. Hyd And 2 Others on 16 June, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO
NANDIKONDA
W.P.No.28876 OF 2008
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Ms. V. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing
Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the Income Department for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
claiming for the following relief:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to issue an order or orders or direction
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus by declaring that the petitioner is entitled
for (i) interest of Rs.7,36,576/- on dividends paid on
6,50,000 units of MIP 98 of the 3rd respondent from
the month of dividend payable until actual payment
made i.e., April, 2008 and (ii) Rs.99,775/- being the
interest calculated at the rate of 1% per month for
5 months on Rs.19,95,500/-, by consequently
directing the 3rd respondent to pay an amount of
Rs.8,36,351/-, pending further orders and pass such
other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and
equity and in the circumstance of the case".
3. The whole issue of the petitioner stands originated from an
earlier writ petition i.e., W.P.No.2305 of 2002 which stood
disposed of by the Division Bench of this High Court vide order
dated 27.08.2004 by making the following observations:
"In the result, the transfer of units of the
petitioner to UTI by 3rd respondent is quashed.
Since the tax has already been paid, therefore in the
interest of justice, we direct the 3rd respondent to
calculate the face value of the units of the petitioner
at Rs.10/- per unit and pay the difference to the
petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed
of. No costs.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court, both the third respondent-Unit Trust of India, as it then
was and also the petitioner herein filed two civil appeals before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., Civil Appeal Nos.4793 of 2007
and 4799 of 2007 vide SLP Nos.18855 and 18861 of 2005.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the
Unit Trust of India, however, allowed the appeal filed by the
petitioner on 11.10.2007. While allowing the appeal of the
petitioner and dismissing the appeal of Unit Trust of India, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"22. The banker becomes a debtor of the
assessee-in-default on maturity of the fixed deposit
scheme. The fixed deposit itself could have been a
subject matter of the judgment.
23. We, therefore, do not find any error in the
judgment of the High Court as the respondent is
entitled to be restituted. We are of the opinion, that
the respondent was also entitled to dividend
declared during the said period viz., from the date of
allotment. The High Court was not correct in not
considering that aspect of the matter.
24. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal
filed by the Administrator, Unit Trust of India is
dismissed and the appeal filed by B.M.Malani is
allowed with costs".
Subsequent to the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the Unit Trust of India seems to have made the payment to the
petitioner, so far as dividend is concerned, only in April, 2008.
5. The present writ petition has been filed for an appropriate
interest on the dividend so paid by the Unit Trust of India for the
delay that took place from the date of allotment till the date of
actual payment. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
order in paragraph 23 reproduced earlier has categorically held
that petitioners are entitled for dividend from the date of
allotment. In the instant case, the payment has not been made
from the date of allotment, but has been made only in April, 2008
without taking care of the interest accruing on the delay that
occurred in making the payment. The instant writ petition, for the
relief reflected in the first paragraph of this judgment, has been
filed only for this limited purpose. Respondent No.3, the
respondent who is liable to make the payment to the petitioner, in
spite of proper service have decided not to contest the case and
thereby have not engaged any counsel to represent them in spite
of process. The instant writ petition is one which was filed on
29.12.2008.
6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the relief, in fact, that has
been sought for is not against respondent Nos.1 and 2, but is only
against respondent No.3. We find that there is no representation
on behalf of third respondent. We also have perused the record
and found that the notices issued have been duly served upon
them. The writ petition, as such, is coming up for hearing after a
period of almost 17 years. In view of the same, we do not find it
justifiable in issuing fresh notice to respondent No.3/Unit Trust of
India, now being known as UTI Assessment Management
Company Limited.
7. From the documents and the judgments of the High Court
and the Supreme Court available on record, there does not seem to
be any dispute so far as the dates of allotment and the dates of
payment are concerned. There were allotments made on different
dates and the Hon'ble Supreme had in its order dated 11.10.2007
had in very categorical terms held that the petitioners were
entitled to dividend declared during the said period from the date
of allotment whereas the payment has, in fact, been made only in
April, 2008. Thus, there was some considerable delay on the part
of the third respondent in making the payment for the said
intervening period. In the given factual backdrop of the case,
we do not intend to keep the writ petition further pending,
awaiting the appearance of respondent No.3, rather ends of
justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of at this
juncture after 17 years with a direction to respondent No.3 to
immediately scrutinize the claim of the petitioner so far as the
interest payable to the petitioner is concerned from the date of
allotment till the date of actual date of payment at the rate of 6.5%
per annum.
8. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
16.06.2025
Lrkm
