Justification of seeking clarification from the court before issuing revised offers and the liability of allottees to pay reasonable interest to the appellant Board.

ORDER

1. The respondents are allotees of flats under a Self-financing Scheme floated by the appellant Board. There was some dispute between the parties and it led the respondents into filing a writ petition in the High Court for vindicating their grievances against the appellant Board. The High Court found that the writ petitions were not maintainable. In spite of forming that opinion, the High Court, instead of driving back the respondents to the circuitous route of filing civil suits and inviting adjudication of questions on facts, showed indulgence by persuading the parties to arrive at a settlement so as to give a quietus to the litigation. There were two categories of allottees referred to as "Category I" and "Category II". The appellant Board made an offer for settlement in the following terms:

"Category I

A.Rs

1. Original price 5, 61,400.00

2. Interest @ 16.5% p.a. from

1-1-1991 to 31-1-19961, 92,981.00

3. Less interest @ 16.5% p.a. on Rs 3.40 lakhs from

1-1- 1994 to 31- 1-1996 1, 16,875.00

4. Watch and ward @ Rs 50 p.m. from

1-1-1994 to 31-1-1996 1250.00

6, 38,756.00

Say Rs 6,38,756.00

B. Repair will be Rs 8800 per flat approximately.

Category II

A. Rs

1. Original price 4, 33,100.00

2. Interest @ 16.5% p.a. from

1-1-1991 to 31-1-19961,48,878.00

3. Less interest @ 16.5%p.a. on Rs 3.40

lakhs from 1-1-1994 to 31-1-1996 87,656.00

4. Watch and ward@ Rs 50 p.m. from

1-1-1994 to 31-1-1996 1250.00

4, 95,572.00

Say Rs 4,95,600.00

B. Repair will be Rs 8800 per flat approximately."

2. The Court found the proposal to be very reasonable and accepted .the same and allowed the respondents an opportunity of accepting the revised offer of the appellant Board which. Offer, the High Court directed, the appellant Board to issue to each of the allottees, consistently with the offer made before the Court and incorporated in the judgment.

3. In spite of the dispute having been so settled, the controversy did not terminate. It appears that the hearing before the High Court had taken place sometime in the beginning of the month of January 1996 when the appellant Board submitted the proposal for settlement and made calculations by taking into account the interest which would become due and payable by 31-1-1996. The judgment appears to have been reserved and came to be delivered on 15-3-1996, that is, much after 31-1-1996, the date up to which the calculations were made as stated hereinabove. The other controversy which arose is that the respondents had approached the appellant Board for issuance of revised offers which according to the respondents were not issued by the appellant Board. The reason for not issuing revised letters of allotment, was, according to the appellant Board that it had moved an application before the High Court seeking clarification/direction for payment of further interest up to the date of payment in view of the judgment having been delayed.

4. The fact remains that sometime in the month of April or somewhere around it the respondents have made the payments in terms of the proposal of the Board recorded by the High Court in its judgment. The possession over the flats has been delivered to the allottees and they are in occupation thereof. The only controversy which survives for adjudication is the appellants claim for interest up to the actual date of payment.

5. According to the appellant Board there is no reason to deprive the appellant Board of interest for the period between 1-2-1996 and the actual date of payment by the respondents. According to the respondents they had approached the Board for issuance of fresh allotment letters in the terms of the direction made by the High Court and if the appellant Board had delayed issuance of the revised offers the respondents cannot be saddled with the liability for payment of interest.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that fault cannot be found with the appellant Board for delay in issuance of allotment letters. They were seeking a clarification from the