LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 05-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR.
v.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5647 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Claim for payment of interest on refund 
of the amount deposited by the appellants-charitable institutions with the 
respondent to avail the beneﬁ t of the construction based on additional FAR, 
if justiﬁ ed.
Interest – Claim for, on refunded amount – Propriety:
Held: On facts, as on the date when the writ petition was ﬁ led and 
the petitioner had voluntarily oﬀ ered to deposit the amount, the amount 
was to be paid and recoverable under the notiﬁ cation dated 10.10.2008 and 
23.12.2008 if the beneﬁ t of additional FAR was to be availed – Petitioners 
being desirous of availing the same and to proceed with the construction 
on obtaining the Sanctioned Plan in-curred the expenditure by oﬀ ering to 
deposit the amount and avail the beneﬁ t instead of awaiting adjudication and 
thereafter availing – Thus, when as on the date the deposit was made, the 
notiﬁ cation remained valid and even subsequently there is no declaration that 
the notiﬁ cation and the demand made is illegal, but through the subsequent 
notiﬁ cation an exemption was granted by the respondents themselves to a 
certain category of institutional plots to avail additional FAR without levying 
such charges – Thus, the circumstances in which the deposit was made is 
not in a situation where the appellant suﬀ ered any loss due to the ‘Act of 
Court’ – Further, insofar as the respondent is concerned, the notiﬁ cation 
providing for additional FAR charges was in force on the date when the 
deposit was made – Even though in the interim order dtd.07.05.10 passed 
by the High Court there was an indication that the question of refund of 
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 835 : 2023 INSC 797
835
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
amount with interest would be examined at the stage of conclusion of the 
writ petitions, on facts, when there was no adjudication and determination 
with regard to the right of the appellant and a declaration that the amount 
was illegally demanded and retained by the respondent, either the direction 
to pay interest or to compensate in any other manner for the pendente lite 
period would not arise. [Paras 13 and 14]
Contempt petition – Scope – Amount refunded:
Held: In a circumstance where subsequently the amount has been 
refunded and the contempt, if any, to that extent is purged, the ultimate 
conclusion to dispose of the contempt petition by the High Court is justiﬁ ed 
– No error committed – However, insofar as the contention relating to the 
retention of the money belonging to the appellant in the second of the cases 
herein subsequent to the expiry of the period indicated in the order dated 
27.08.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No.2823 of 2010 before the High Court and 
as to whether such retention has caused loss to the appellant and conversely 
the beneﬁ t derived from the same by the respondent, if any, and the manner 
in which the same is to be compensated or not as also the rate at which it 
is to be done are matters which would have to be considered in appropriate 
proceedings and in accordance with law wherein the parties will avail all 
opportunities to put forth their contentions and place material – Therefore, 
in a similar manner in which the appellants in the ﬁ rst of the appeals have 
availed their remedy, it would be open for the appellant in the second of the 
appeals also to avail the remedy before the appropriate forum, in accordance 
with the law – All contentions of both parties in that regard are left open. 
[Para 16]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 367 : [2001] 
4 Suppl. SCR 323; South East-ern Coalﬁ elds Limited v. State of Madhya 
Pradesh and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 648 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 651; Rajasthan 
Housing Board & Ors. v. Krishna Kumari (2005) 13 SCC 151; Food 
Corporation of India and Anr. v. M/s Seil Ltd. & Ord. (2008) 3 SCC 440 : 
[2008] 1 SCR 663 – held not applicable.
837
LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 
v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 261 : 
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 740 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5647 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2013 of the High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.