- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We shall deal with the facts of the appeal arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 17490/97. The appellant is engaged in the process of cotton and man-made fabrics on job work. The questions whether the processing activities constituted manufacturing and regarding the assessable value of the processed fabric were the subject matter of a writ petition filed by the appellants in the High Court at Bombay. The appeal having been dismissed, the appellant approached this Court by way of a special leave petition. As an interim order, pending the disposal of the appeal by special leave, this Court required the appellant to give a bank guarantee for 50% of the amount in dispute and to deposit the balance 50% in the High Court. The amount deposited in the High Court pursuant to this interim order was invested in fixed deposit. On 4th November, 1988, the appeal was dismissed by this Court. The question then was who was to get the amount of the interest that had accrued on the fixed deposits because there was no order in this behalf.
(3.) The appellant applied to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court for release of the interest amount to it and, on 28th July, 1992, the Prothonotary so ordered. The order of the Prothonotary was assailed by the respondents by taking out Notice of Motion 400/92 in the High Court. On 25th June, 1993, Notice of Motion 400/92 was dismissed. The order in this behalf reads thus: "The relief sought in the Notice of Motion cannot be granted unless the Union of India seeks clarification from the Supreme Court in respect of payment of interest on the amount deposited in Court and invested. Notice of Motion dismissed. No order as to costs. The Union of India to file proceedings for clarification before the Supreme Court within 8 weeks. Prothonotary not to part with monies until further orders." The respondents' clarification application, made pursuant to the above order, was dismissed by this Court on 10th May, 1996. Pursuant thereto, the appellants wrote a praecipe to the Prothonotary claiming the interest amount. That praecipe was placed before a Division Bench, presumably because the Prothonotary had been ordered not to part with the monies until further orders. What was shown on the daily board on that day, as we have seen, was the writ petition. The application made in the praecipe was argued before the Division Bench. When, however, the judgment thereon, which had been reserved, was to be delivered, the daily board showed that it was to be delivered in Notice of Motion 400/92; and, indeed, the judgment which is now under challenge before us is in Notice of Motion 400/92. The judgment allowed Notice of Motion 400/92 thus: "Notice of Motion No. 400/92. Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read as under: (a) That the order dated 20-7-1992 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court in Misc. Writ Petition No. 394 of 1979 be set aside. (b) That the amount of interest accrued on Rs. 82,59,317.61 ps., deposited by the Petitioners in respect of past dues in cash be paid to the Respondents." ;