- (1.) When order dated 14/5/1993 was passed by us, we thought that we have succeeded in bringing quietus to the long-drawn litigation between an affluent and prosperous Holding Company and poor and suffering subscribers to the Chit Fund of the Subsidiary Company. We felt, however, disturbed when we saw attempts made on the side of the Subsidiary Company to avoid payment on certain counts to the Subscribers' Association and attempts made on the side of Subscribers' Association to have its members increased and get payments made to all such members to the detriment of other large body of subscribers. Whatever that be, we heard Shri R. K. Jain, Senior Counsel for the Subscribers' Association, and Shri K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. for Sudharshan Trading Company, on several days and at length. Five claims have been advanced on behalf of the Subscribers' Association: (1 They were entitled to interest on deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs from 3/11/1989; (2 Direction to pay 25% interest on the deposit made by the subscribers being by way of compensation, the Company should not have deducted income tax on it. (3 Direction to pay 12% interest from the date when the claim applications of the subscribers were decided by the Kerala High court was wrongly treated as 21/2/1991, as, according to applicants, this date should be from 1981 or in any case from 1987; (4 The Company was liable to refund the amount shown in the pass book yet they were refunding lesser amount after deducting not only the commission but also the dividend which had accrued on the deposit. (5 The Company instead of paying every member of the Subscribers' Association have paid to 186 members only
(2.) So far as the first claim is concerned, we are of the opinion that the Company was liable to pay interest at the rate of 25% even on the deposit ofrs. 5 lakhs. It is not disputed that the interest at the rate of 25% has been paid on the deposit from 6/4/1990. We, therefore, direct that the Holding Company shall pay interest at the rate of 25% on Rs. 5 lakhs from 3/11/1989 to 5/4/1990 minus the interest which has been earned on this amount and becomes payable to Subscribers' Association
(3.) As regards second claim, we clarify our order dated 14/5/1993 that the 25% interest directed to be paid by the Holding Company was towards compensation on the total deposits made by the Subscribers' Association in the course of adjusting equities between parties. From the document filed in this court it appears that the Holding Company after deducting income tax has deposited the same with the Income Tax Department. It shall be open to the subscribers to apply to the Income Tax Department for refund of the same on the basis of this order;