AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 245 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to release payment with respect to work carried out by it him for the respondent.
Learned State counsel submits that bills submitted by the petitioner are under scrutiny of Anti-Corruption Bureau ('ACB'). The moment matter is cleared by ACB or on verification by Department, it is found that bills of petitioner are genuine, the payment would be released.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent may be subjected to interest @ 6% per annum.
This Court, in view of pendency of inquiry, cannot direct respondents to release admitted payment, however, respondent in the name of inquiry cannot withhold money for indefinite period. It is basic principle of financial jurisprudence that anyone who holds money is liable to pay interest because interest is compensatory in nature.
In the backdrop, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondents to release admitted payment to the petitioner within 3 months from the date of clarification by ACB or verification by Department that bills of the petitioner are genuine. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing petition before this Court till the date of payment of bills. If the payment is not released within aforesaid period, the respondent would be liable to pay interest @ 9% from the expiry of said period.