CAO1261-2025 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.1261 OF 2025 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.613 OF 2022 (D) IN WRIT PETITION NO.672 OF 2019 (D) DHANRAJ S/O HARICHAND KHANDELWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders and Registrar's orders ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Mr. G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for the applicant Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the respondent-NMC Ms Shamshi Haider, AGP for the respondent-State. ------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 28.08.2026 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for clarification of the order dated 13.08.2025, as regards the interest on the refunded amount, which was directed to pay by the respondent- Corporation, to the present applicant. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation strongly opposes the present application on the ground that the Municipal Corporation is a public authority and if any order is passed to pay the interest to the applicant, it will be paid from the public amount. It is therefore, submitted that this Court may not consider the request of the applicant to pay the interest on the refunded amount. nd.thawre 2026:BHC-NAG:11274-DB CAO1261-2025 2/4 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his claim for interest, has placed reliance upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, passed in Civil Appeal No.2643 of 2025 (Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. ..v.. Government of NCT & Anr.), dated 18.02.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held thus: “29. In the case of Union of India through Director of Income Tax v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335, this Court held that when the collection is illegal, the Revenue is obliged to refund such amount with interest as money so deposited was retained and enjoyed by it. No discrimination can be shown between the assessee and Revenue in paying interest on the refund of tax. Money received and retained without right, carries with it the right to interest. There being no express statutory provision for payment of interest on the refund of excess amount/tax collected by the Revenue, the Government cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful monies with accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such monies. Obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with in the right to interest. The relevant observations are as under:- “Providing for payment of interest in case of refund of amounts paid as tax or deemed tax or advance tax is a method now statutorily adopted by fiscal legislation to ensure that the aforesaid amount of tax which has been duly paid in prescribed time and provisions in that behalf form part of the recovery machinery provided in a taxing Statute. Refund due and payable to the assessee is debt-owed and payable by the Revenue. The Government, there being no express statutory provision for payment of interest on the refund of excess amount/tax collected by the Revenue, cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful monies with the accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such monies. The State having received the money without right and nd.thawre CAO1261-2025 3/4 having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest. Whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course.” (Emphasis supplied)” 5. Considering the above referred observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and considering that an excessive amount, which was directed to refund back to the applicant, was recovered from the applicant, we are of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to receive the interest over the amount of Rs.47,68,090/- from the date of the application made by the applicant for refund of such amount. i.e. 02.08.2017. 6. The applicant is praying for 6 % per annum simple interest over the said amount. 7. However, the learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation makes a request to reduce it to 2 % per annum, if this Court grants the same. The base for 2 % per annum interest is, as per the provision of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the Corporation charges 2 % interest over the delayed payment of property taxes. 8. Considering the rival contentions and in view of the above-referred order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as we have held that the applicant is entitled to interest on the above-referred amount, as regard to the rate at which such nd.thawre CAO1261-2025 4/4 interest should be paid, we are of the opinion that, considering the Corporation, a public authority and the action of recovery of the amount against the applicant was not mala fide, we direct the Corporation to pay 3% interest per annum from 02.08.2017, i.e., the date of the application made by the applicant for refund of the amount, till the date of realization of the amount. 9. 9. It is further directed that the respondent-Corporation shall make payment of excess amount recovered from the applicant, along with interest, as directed herein above, within six months from today. 10. The application is allowed and disposed of. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) nd.thawre Signed by: Mr. Niranjan Thawre Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/08/2026 20:36:44