Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Interest on Seized Amount Returned Without Interest Under FERA. Court holds that interest is payable on amounts seized and retained by the Enforcement Directorate when ultimately returned to the owner, applying principles of restitution and equity.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, M/s R.K. Jewellers (a partnership firm) and M/s N.B. Exports (a proprietary concern), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 28th February 2001 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The order directed the return of a sum of money seized from the petitioners' premises but did not consider the question of granting interest on that amount. The petitioners sought interest on the seized amount from the date of seizure until the date of return. The court, comprising Justices V.C. Daga and K.K. Tated, heard the matter and perused the petition. The court noted that the impugned order failed to address the issue of interest. Relying on principles of restitution and equity, the court held that when the State seizes and retains money belonging to a citizen and later returns it, the citizen is entitled to interest for the period of deprivation. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider and grant appropriate interest on the seized amount. The judgment emphasizes that the power under Article 226 can be invoked to remedy such injustice even if the statute does not expressly provide for interest.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Interest on Seized Amount - Petitioners challenged order of Special Director of Enforcement returning seized amount without interest - Court held that when money is seized and retained by the State and later returned, the owner is entitled to interest as a matter of restitution and equity - Held that the authority must consider grant of interest on the amount seized and returned (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the amount seized from their premises under FERA and returned without interest.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider and grant appropriate interest on the seized amount returned to the petitioners.

Law Points

  • Interest on seized amount
  • Restitution
  • Equity
  • FERA
  • Article 226
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (05) 18

Writ Petition No. 2777 of 2003

2010-05-04

V.C. Daga, K.K. Tated

Zal Andhyarujina with Ms. P. Mhatre i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for petitioners; S.V. Pakale with Y.R. Mishra for respondents

M/s R.K. Jewellers and M/s N.B. Exports

Union of India, Deputy/Assistant Director of Enforcement, Special Director of Enforcement

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging order of Special Director of Enforcement under FERA returning seized amount without interest.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought interest on the amount seized from their premises and returned without interest.

Filing Reason

The impugned order dated 28th February 2001 did not consider grant of interest on the seized amount.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 28th February 2001 by Special Director of Enforcement returning seized amount without interest.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the amount seized under FERA and returned without interest.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they are entitled to interest on the seized amount from the date of seizure till return. Respondents opposed the claim for interest.

Ratio Decidendi

When money is seized and retained by the State and later returned, the owner is entitled to interest as a matter of restitution and equity, even if the statute does not expressly provide for it.

Judgment Excerpts

This petition, filed under Article 226, is directed against the order in original 28th February, 2001 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to the extend it does not consider the question of grant of interest on the amount seized from the premises of the petitioners and returned to them without interest.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2777 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 28th February 2001 of the Special Director of Enforcement under FERA. The court heard the matter and allowed the petition on 4th May 2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973:
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Licensee's Challenge to Eviction Under Section 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — Purchaser of Property Can Maintain Eviction Application Against Licensee. Licensee Cannot Deny Licensor's Title After Expiry of Li...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Interest on Seized Amount Returned Without Interest Under FERA. Court holds that interest is payable on amounts seized and retained by the Enforcement Directorate when ultimately returned to the owner, apply...