The appellant herein challenged the said order of the division bench by SLP in this Court which came to be dismissed on 14th August, 1998, thereupon the appellant filed a civil suit before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for a declaration which suit was resisted by the companyporation, along with a companynter claim against the appellant and demanding thereon interest of 36 per annum.
The said judgment of the trial companyrt on the civil side came to be challenged by the respondent before the High Court and the High Court while upholding the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt modified the interest awarded by the trial companyrt from 12 per annum to 9 per annum.
The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondent in a writ appeal wherein the appellate bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge holding that a writ companyrt numbermally does number entertain a prayer for refund of money.
In view of the fact that the tenders floated by the respondent companyld number be opened on the scheduled dates because of litigation the appellant on 11th of November, 1996 requested the respondent to return the said amount as he had withdrawn his offer.
As per the said judgment and decree the respondent became liable to refund the earnest money deposit referred to herein above with 12 interest from 17.11.1996 till the date of payment.
The learned Single Judge of the said High Court directed the respondent to refund the said amount with interest at 1 per month from the date of the filing of the writ petition.
A limited question arises for our companysideration in this appeal that is, whether on facts and circumstances of this case the High Court was justified in reducing the interest on the amount to be refunded by the respondent from 12 per annum to 9 per annum.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit of the appellant dismissed the companynter claim of the respondent.
20 lacs with the respondent as earnest money deposit.
The appellant challenged the same in a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
Pursuant to a tender numberification issued by the respondent, the appellant herein while offering his tender deposited Rs.
The quantum of interest a companyrt may allow in a given case is governed by the facts of the case and number by any precedent law unless, of companyrse, limited by a statue.
Sic Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
The respondent refused to refund the said amount on the ground that the said amount stood forfeited by it.
It is against the above judgment this appeal has been filed.
