VIJENDER JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of eight civil writ petitions Nos. 3737, 4034, 4379, 4384, 4727, 4458, 6560 and 6453 of 2007, as common question of law and facts are involved in these cases.
(2.) IN the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders of Haryana Urban Development Authority charging compound interest on the delayed payments of additional prices of the plots. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the aforesaid question has already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Gian Inder Sharma v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2003(1) RCR(Civil) 297 : CWP 16497 of 2001 decided on 11.11.2002. They further contended that only simple interest can be charged in view of the decision of this Court in CWP No. 2278 of 1999 M/s. Bhatia Brothers v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority and others decided on February 14, 2000.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the matter involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Gian Inder Sharma case (supra). In the said case, it was held as under :- "We are of the opinion that the respondents are not entitled to charge compound interest on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question. They can charge only simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Division Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Bhatia Brothers' case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out to us any provision of law under the Act and the 1978 Regulation or any condition in the allotment letter, which authorised the respondents to charge compound interest on the delayed payment. As per clause 6 of the allotment letter, the respondents are entitled to charge 10% interest on the amount of instalment. The contention of the petitioner that he is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question is totally justified. The respondents, inspite of the decision of this Court, are illegally demanding the compound interest on the aforesaid delayed payment from the petitioner. We find the action of the respondents in demanding compound interest from the petitioner is totally unreasonable and arbitrary and without any authority of law. Therefore, we direct that the respondents can charge only simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the petitioner on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question. Since the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 2,10,000/- under protest with the respondents towards the additional price, the respondents are directed to calculate the additional price with 15% simple interest and adjust the same towards the above payment made by the petitioner. If there is any excess amount the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months. It is, however, made clear that no penalty can be charged from the petitioner on account of delayed payment of additional price. However, if there is any other amount due against the petitioner, the same shall also be adjusted against the payment already made by him and after making adjustment, if any amount is fund due towards him, the same can be recovered from him." ;