IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

WPA No. 23855 of 2006

Golden Multi Services Club Ltd. & Anr.

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arnab Chakraborty, Adv.

Ms. Pragya Bhowmick, Adv.

Mr. Sukalyan Chakraborty, Adv.

Ms. Rimi Mandal, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Areejit Dass Mallick, Adv.

Mr. Adhip Narayan Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Manishka Seal, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Chamria, Adv.

Finally Heard on : 24.08.2026

Delivered on : 30.09.2026

Uploaded on : 30.09.2026

2

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.: -

1. The Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking direction

upon the respondent authorities to immediately take all steps to

refund the security deposit of Rs. 1 crore and unadjusted cash

deposit balance amounting to Rs. 41,45,696/-to the Petitioners, paid

by them in respect of Group Mediclaim Policy and Group Personal

Accident Policy. The Petitioners further seek directions upon the

respondents to certify and transmit to the Hon’ble High Court the

records of the case including any record that might have been passed

by the respondents thereby deciding not to refund the General or

Security Deposit of Rs. 1 Crore and unadjusted Cash Deposit Balance

of Rs. 41,45,696/- totalling Rs. 1,41,45,696/- against Group

Mediclaim Policy and the Group Personal Accident Policy pursuant to

termination of the Memorandum of Understanding with effect from

15

th

December, 2004 and other consequential relief (s) so that

conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is a company, namely Golden Multi Services Club

Ltd (In short, GMSC), duly registered under Section 25 of the

Companies Act, 1956, and the petitioner no. 2 is one of its Directors.

GMSC is a multi-faceted service club, providing its members various

facilities like Emergency Ambulance services, health or medical

3

check-ups, arranging for and assisting in all types of personal and

health insurance, recreation and refreshment facilities, providing

and/or arranging accommodation on tours, arranging lectures,

seminars and exhibitions on diverse fields beneficial for life and

health and providing advice on scientific methods of career building,

legal matters and other related issues.

3. The facts of the case are that Petitioner No. 1 entered into two

separate Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) with a famous

Insurance company i.e. National Insurance Company Limited (being

the respondent No.1 herein) on 2nd April, 2004, for extension of

Group Mediclaim Coverage and Group Personal Accident Coverage in

favour of the members of the petitioner No. 1. The said MoUs were

valid for a period of 3 years from the date of their execution, i.e., till

1" April, 2007 unless cancelled or terminated by either party with

prior notice of 3 months from the date of the notice or period when

the MoUs expire, whichever would be earlier.

4. As per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid MoUs, a General

Deposit (Security Deposit) of Rs.50 lacs was always to be maintained

by the petitioner No. 1 with the Respondent No.1 till the expiry of

each of the MoUs, and the Respondent No.1 had the right to adjust

4

the deposited amount only against any financial default by the

petitioner No. 1.

5. An amount of Rs. 50 lakhs each for Group Mediclaim Policy and

Group Personal Accident Policy respectively, totalling a sum of Rs.1

Crore, was duly deposited by the petitioner No.1 with the Respondent

No.1 in terms of the aforesaid MoUs.

6. After the commencement of the aforesaid policies under the MoUs,

from time to time the petitioner no. 1 had been duly depositing the

insurance premiums required with the Respondent no. 1 under the

two aforesaid policies out of the membership fees collected by the

petitioner no. 1 from its members in a time-bound manner.

7. After satisfactory continuation of the aforesaid arrangement between

the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1 for several months

pursuant to the execution of the aforesaid MoUs, the petitioners all of

a sudden received a Show Cause Notice dated 29th September, 2004

from the Executive Director, Insurance Regulatory Development

Authority (IRDA) containing therein several vague and arbitrary

allegations stating more fully and directed the petitioner No.1 to

suspend all further activities as a Corporate Agent although

petitioner No.1 never acted as a Corporate Agent.

5

8. A reply to the said Show Cause Notice was duly given on behalf of the

petitioner No. 1 by a letter dated 20

th

October, 2004 in detail

rebutting all the charges and/or allegations contained in the Show

Cause Notice dated 29

th

September, 2004 with proper and valid

reasons.

9. Soon after receipt of the aforesaid reply to the Show Cause Notice

dated 29

th

September, 2004 by the Executive Director, IRDA, the

petitioners came to know of order No. IRDA/ORD/CA/055/Dec.04

dated 9

th

December, 2004 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and

Development Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as IRDA) to all

Life and General Insurers advising them not to accept any business

from a number of companies and entities including that of petitioner

No. 1, through any arrangements like agency, Memorandum of

Understanding, or referral by any other name till the matter with

respect to charges as contained in the Show Cause dated 29th

September, 2004 is disposed of.

10. The petitioners herein challenged the Show Cause Notice dated 29th

September, 2004 as well as order dated 9th December, 2004 by filing

a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta being W.P.

No.22683 (W) of 2004 [earlier numbered as AST No.4117 of 2004]

wherein by an interim order dated 15th December, 2004 the Hon'ble

6

Court was, inter alia, pleased to stay the operation of the Show Cause

Notice dated 29

th

September, 2004 and the Order dated 9

th

December, 2004.

11. On 15

th

December, 2004, the petitioners received a letter from the

Respondent No. 1 purportedly dated 14

th

December, 2004 bearing

Reference No. 100300/GMSC/2004 by which the Respondent No. 1,

National Insurance Company Limited levelled certain false and

frivolous charges against the petitioner No.1 in addition to those as

contained in the Show Cause Notice dated 29

th

September, 2004 and

observing that no satisfactory reply was given by the petitioners to

the Show Cause Notice of IRDA dated 29

th

September, 2004 before

finally declaring the termination of the two MoUs dated 2

nd

April,

2004 citing the order IRDA dated 9

th

December, 2004.

12. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid letter dated 14

th

December,

2004 of the Respondent No.1 by filing another Writ Petition before the

Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta being AST No.4271 of 2004,

subsequently re-numbered as W.P. No.22684 (W) of 2004, wherein by

an interim Order dated 21

st

December, 2004, the Hon'ble High Court

stayed the Letter dated 14

th

December, 2004. The said Writ Petition

was eventually withdrawn by the petitioners, resulting in the revival

of the letter dated 14

th

December, 2004 of the Respondent No. 2

7

thereby leading to the cancellation and termination of the two MoUs

dated 2

nd

April, 2004 by the said letter.

13. Upon cancellation and/or expiry of the two MoUs dated 2

nd

April,

2004 between the petitioners and the respondent authorities by the

letter of the Respondent No. 2 dated 14

th

December, 2004, the

Respondents became liable to refund and/or return to the petitioners

the amount of Rs.50 lakhs maintained as Security Deposit for each

policy according to the MoUs, totalling Rs. 1 Crore. The respondent

authorities also became liable to refund an amount of Rs.41,45,696/-

lying with the respondents as unadjusted Cash Deposit Balance

arising out of advance deposit of premium by the petitioner with the

respondents during the period with respect to the aforesaid policies in

question.

14. Furthermore, upon no new business being accepted by the

respondents from the petitioners since 15th December, 2004, the

petitioners effectively started suffering heavy loss of interest due to

the amount of Rs.1,41,45,696/ lying with the Respondent

authorities. The petitioners thus decided to request the Respondent

authorities to refund the said Security Deposit amount of Rs.1 Crore

lying with the Respondent authorities. The petitioners, by letter dated

24

th

October, 2005 gave notice to the respondent no. 2, thereby

8

requesting refund of the Security Deposit amount of Rs.1 Crore along

with the unadjusted Cash Deposit Balance of Rs.41,45,696/-

totalling Rs. 1,41,25,696/-lying with the Respondent No. 1, enclosing

therewith a copy of the abstract of the Ledger Account of the

Respondent No.1 maintained in the books of the petitioner No.1

showing the details of the transactions during the period up to 14

th

December, 2004. The petitioner No. 2 has not received any reply to

the aforesaid letter from the respondent authorities till date despite

there being a statutory obligation under the MoUs dated 2

nd

April,

2004 to refund and/or return the said amount.

15. The petitioners have not yet received any letter or communication

from the respondent authorities regarding the refund of the Security

Deposit amounting to Rs. 1 Crore or the unadjusted Cash Deposit

Balance of Rs. 41,45,696/- and, as such, the respondent authorities

have illegally retained the amount of Rs. 1,41,45,696/- and are

profiting therefrom and depriving the members of the petitioner No.

1/club, in an unfair manner. Although the petitioner No.1 company

has not committed any financial default during the existence of its

business relations with the respondent authorities, and no allegation

of any commission of any financial default by the petitioner company

has been made by the respondent authorities in response to the

9

aforesaid letters of the petitioner claiming the Security Deposit

amount of Rs. 1 Crore, nor have they denied their liability to pay the

said amount.

16. There is no sum presently due and payable by the petitioners to the

respondent authorities, which is also clear from the respondent

authorities not denying or disputing till date the claims made by the

petitioners towards refund of Security Deposit and unadjusted Cash

Deposit Balance, and as such the respondent authorities are bound

to refund the petitioners the aforesaid amount together with interest

thereon at the prevailing market rate from 15th December, 2004 till

the date of repayment of the amounts.

17. The action of the respondent authorities in not refunding the Security

Deposit of Rs.1 Crore against the Group Mediclaim Policy and the

Group Personal Accident Policy suffers from lack and/or excess of

jurisdiction without any authority of law, and is sans reason and as

such the said wrong warrants immediate redressal by this Hon'ble

Court. Hence, this writ petition.

18. Both sides filed their affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply. The

case has been pending since 2006, for over 20 years now.

19. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, appearing on behalf

of the petitioners, submitted that there was a relationship between

10

the Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioner no. 1 was just an Insurer

and policyholder for the members of the company upon payment of

premium for the purpose of providing the benefit of Health-related

activities for members and their families.

20. The main object of the Petitioner No. 1 was to provide health &

insurance related assistance to their members, to provide Emergency

Ambulance Services, to advise members on Scientific method of

career building. The Respondent No. 1 had earlier provided “Group

Mediclaim Coverage insurance policy” and subsequently decided to

enter into a fresh MoU with the Petitioner No.1 for availing the Group

Mediclaim Coverage and Group Personal Accident Policy for their

members, on the lines of revised understanding and enter into the

two MoUs dated 2

nd

April, 2004 based on a resolution taken by the

GMSC in their Board Meeting on 12

th

January, 2004.

21. Learned Counsel further submitted that both the MoUs clearly

mentioned the terms and conditions pursuant to the guidelines of the

Insurance Act, 1938, General Insurance Business Nationalization

Act, 1972, IRDA Regulations made thereunder from time to time,

which include regulations like Licensing of Insurance Agents

Regulations, 2000, Insurance Advertisement and Disclosure

Regulation 2000 etc.

11

22. After execution of MoUs by and between the Petitioner No.1 and

Respondent No.2, a Group Mediclaim Coverage policy and Group

Personal Accident Policy were issued to the GMSC Ltd. by the

respondent No.1, Kolkata upon verify all the documents produced by

the members and said policy was covering the members of the service

club (GMSC Ltd.) and thereafter everything was going smoothly but

suddenly, received a Show Cause Notice dated 29th September, 2004

from the Executive Director, IRDA containing therein several vague

and arbitrary allegations stating more fully and directed the

petitioner No.1 to suspend all further activities as a Corporate Agent

although petitioner No.1 never acted as a Corporate Agent. A detailed

reply given by the petitioner no.1. Even detailed reply, the IRDA

passed an order 9th December, 2004 to all Life and General Insurers

advising them not to accept any business from a number of

companies and entities including that of the petitioner No.1, through

any arrangements like agency, Memorandum of Understanding, or

referral by any other name till the matter with respect to charges as

contained in the Show Cause dated 29th September, 2004 is

disposed of.

23. It was further contended that no criminal case or civil case is pending

with regards to issues involved by and the between the

12

parties. No claim or demand raised by the Respondent No.2 either

from the members or the Petitioners till date. The MoUs had been

cancelled since long but the Respondent No.2 withheld illegally and

arbitrarily the Security Deposit totalling Rs.1 Crore and the

unadjusted Cash Deposit Balance of Rs.41,45,696/ and as such the

respondent authorities are illegally continuing to retain the amount of

Rs. 1,41,45,696/- with them and profiting therefrom and depriving

the members of the petitioner No.1 in an unfair manner without

refunding the same as such this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India direct the Respondents

to refund the entire amount of Rs. 1,41,45,696/- along with interest

as applicable till final realization. As the said amount has been

retained unilaterally without any legal or contractual sanction, and

without any adjustment and/or initiating any recovery proceedings,

tantamount to unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and mala fide

enrichment and violates the petitioners’ rights under Article 14, 19 (1)

(g) and 300A.

24. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, appearing on

behalf of the respondents, strenuously objected to the prayer of the

petitioners and further submitted that the present writ petition is not

maintainable since the prayer of the petitioners, to refund the

13

security deposit and the unadjusted Cash Deposit Balance amount

totalling Rs. 1,41,45,696/- along with interest as applicable till final

realisation, involves disputed questions of fact and the writ court

cannot adjudicate such disputes. Such prayer for refund with

interest, when several serious allegations levelled against them lie in

a civil court having jurisdiction; as such, the same is liable to be

dismissed at the threshold with costs.

25. It was submitted that the Petitioner, operating under the guise of a

service club, in fact acted as an unlicensed intermediary in

contravention of the Insurance Act, 1938, rendering its actions ultra

vires and void ab initio, and that the absence of a rigid limitation

period in the MoU for intimation of claims did not waive the implied

obligation to act within a reasonable time.

26. It was further submitted that the underwriting guidelines capped the

Sum Insured at 24 times an individual's monthly income, a norm

allegedly bypassed in the policies of Mr. Rajesh Pandey and Mr.

Arshed Ali Mondal, and that premium/discount rates bear a direct

nexus to claim ratios. While the incurred claim ratio remained

sustainable during 2002–2004, approximately 19% (243 claims) in FY

2002-03 and 36% (471 claims) in FY 2003-04, both below the 60%

threshold, it is alleged that following cancellation of the MoU on

14

December 14, 2004, claim intimations escalated to 1,020 within 3.5

months, yielding a "mathematically unsustainable" 381% ratio,

exploiting a group-covering mechanism of over 10,00,000 members

and exposing the Respondent to prospective liability exceeding Rs.

1,00,00,000/-.

27. It was submitted that the Petitioners continually violated the

Insurance Act, 1938; the General Insurance Business

(Nationalisation) Act, 1972; the IRDA Act, 1999; and the IRDA

Regulations on Licensing of Agents (2002), Protection of Policyholders'

Interests (2002), and Insurance Advertisements and Disclosure

(2000), besides breaching the interest governing clause of the MoU;

that it unlawfully distributed leaflets styling the insurance premium

as a "membership fee" with tenure-wise premium charts, usurping

the role of a licensed insurer; and that it wilfully withheld claim files,

as substantiated in the claims of Pradyut Jana and Subodh Kumar

Das. As a consequence, approximately 1,300 cases were stated to

have been instituted against the Respondent before District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora across India as of March 31,

2008, for defaults attributable to the Petitioners.

28. On this basis it was submitted that the Respondent lawfully exercises

lien and set-off over the Rs. 50,00,000/- security deposit each against

15

the unquantified liability from pending litigations and potential IRDAI

penalties (up to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under the Insurance Act),

rendering the Petitioner's claim for Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, or alternatively

Rs. 41,45,696/-, misconceived and premature; that the Petitioner's

earlier writ, W.P.A. No. 22683 of 2004 against the IRDA, was

dismissed for default vide Order dated August 8, 2024, with no

restoration sought, attaining finality and estopping the Petitioner

from re-agitating the issue; and that as a public sector undertaking

holding public funds in trust, refunding the deposit to a Petitioner

exposing the exchequer to a liability exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/-

(besides 1,300 pending litigations) would amount to unjust

enrichment.

29. On maintainability, it was submitted that Article 226 cannot be

invoked to enforce purely private contractual obligations or

adjudicate disputed questions of fact concerning recovery of money,

the remedy lying in a civil suit; that mandamus lies only for a

statutory/public duty, and the MoU, having no such element, cannot

found a mandamus even if the Respondent is "State" under Article

12; and that the MoU stood discharged under Section 56 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1872 upon the IRDA's statutory directive of

December 9, 2004 restraining business with the Petitioners, an order

16

the Petitioners had unsuccessfully challenged and which attained

finality.

30. Finally, invoking the maxim that fraud vitiates all judicial acts, it was

submitted that the engineered spike to 1,020 claims yielding a 381%

ratio within 3.5 months of the MoU's cancellation was ex facie

indicative of systematic, premeditated fraud, disentitling the

Petitioner to equitable writ relief; and that the petition was further

liable to dismissal with exemplary costs for suppression of material

facts, namely, concealment of its statutory violations and of the

dismissal of W.P.A. No. 22683 of 2004, the Petitioner having

approached the Court under Article 226 without clean hands.

31. In reply, the learned Sr. Counsel refuted all allegations save and

except matter of record made in the Affidavit-in- opposition. Such

allegations were raised for the first time before this Court by filing the

Affidavit-in-opposition on 11

th

September, 2008. Prior to that, or even

later, no civil or criminal case was initiated against the petitioners or

any other persons or members or insured persons, nor was any

adjustment claimed against the amount of General/security deposit

of Rs. 1 Crore and/or unadjusted Cash Deposit Balance amount

totalling of Rs. 41,45,696/-. No adjustment has been made or

informed to the petitioners. Learned Counsel further has placed

17

reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ABL

International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of

India ltd.

1

to support his contention that a writ petition is

maintainable to set right the arbitrary and mala fide actions of the

State even in contractual matters, and further submitted that the

writ petition will be indeed maintainable. Reliance was further placed

on the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. Chief Election

Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors.

2

wherein it was held that the

validity of an impugned order must be judged by the reasons so

mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the

shape of affidavit or otherwise; any reason supplemented through a

subsequent affidavit is not sustainable.

32. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and having gone

through the materials available on the record, it is an undisputed fact

that the respondents had issued Group Mediclaim Coverage and

Group Personal Accident Coverage policies to the petitioners'

members prior to execution of two MoUs by and between the parties.

It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners had deposited Rs.

50,00,000/- each in both the MoUs dated 2

nd

April, 2004 as security

deposit, as well as the unadjusted Cash Deposit Balance of

1

(2004) 3 SCC 553

2

(1978) 1 SCC 405

18

Rs.41,45,696/- All amount is lying with Respondent No.2.

Transactions between the parties continued till 28

th

September, 2004,

prior to issuance of show cause on 29

th

September, 2004. Neither

complaint whatsoever was made by the respondents nor were

allegations made against the petitioners or against any members

regarding allegations made by the learned counsel for the

respondents. Several allegations came on record for the first time

when the Affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondents are

also vague and general, as well as not connected with the petitioners.

33. Despite repeated queries from this Court, learned counsel for the

respondents failed to produce any documents to show that any

criminal or civil proceedings were initiated against the petitioners till

date. No possible answer was offered to this Court. Even for the sake

of argument, if the Respondents initiated any proceedings against the

petitioners, they should have indicated this in the affidavit-in-

opposition.

34. This Court also does not find any contemporaneous documents from

the side of the Respondents regarding adjustments towards

General/security deposit of Rs.1 Crore and/or unadjusted Cash

Deposit Balance amount totalling Rs. 41,45,696/-.

19

35. The question that arises is, on what basis have the respondents

withheld the entire amount of Rs. 1,41,45,696/- for over 2 decades,

in the absence of any civil, criminal, and/or any adjustment in terms

of MoU against the Petitioners? The Clause of the MoUs governing the

adjustment/interest factor of the policies is quoted herein below:-

“A General deposit of Rs. 50 lacs is always to be

maintained by Golden Multi Services Club Ltd. with NIC, Do-

III Kolkata, till the expiry of MOU between GMSC Ltd. & NIC

Ltd. No interest shall be payable on the deposited amount.

Insurer will have the right to adjust this deposit amount for

any financial default by GMSC Ltd.”

36. It is thus clear that no interest is payable, under the terms of the

MoUs, on the Security Deposit of Rs. 1 Crore. The unadjusted Cash

Deposit Balance of Rs. 41,45,696/-, however, stands on a different

footing: it arose out of advance deposit of premium by the petitioner

No. 1 that remained unconsumed against premium liability, and is

not, in terms, the Security Deposit to which Clause 15's "no interest"

stipulation applies.

37. The said clause further indicates that the insurer would have the

right to adjust the amount for any financial default by GMSC Ltd.

However, till date neither account has been submitted nor has any

financial default been adjusted with respect to such General Deposit.

20

38. What is, however, clear is that the respondents' right under the

aforesaid Clause was confined to adjustment of the Security Deposit

against a proven financial default on the part of the petitioner No. 1.

No account has been submitted by the respondents at any stage

showing such adjustment, nor has any financial default been

identified or quantified against the Security Deposit at any time

material to these proceedings. Furthermore, the Respondents made

no claims against the petitioners. There were, however, several

allegations against the petitioners without sufficient materials, and a

lack of supporting documents.

39. No cogent or reasonable explanation, supported by any document,

has been offered by the respondents either in the affidavit-in-

opposition or in the course of arguments. This is not a case where the

writ petition has been filed beyond a reasonable time of the cause of

action; it was instituted about twenty years ago, and the respondents,

throughout this period, sat tight over the amount without response,

retaining it in a manner that this Court finds to be illegal, arbitrary,

and unsustainable in a constitutional forum.

40. The allegations levelled by the respondents are, on the material

placed before this Court, unsubstantiated: no claim or demand

appears to have been raised against the petitioners from any quarter

21

that has been brought on record, and even assuming, for the sake of

argument, that some irregularity attributable to the petitioners did

occur, neither the IRDA nor the respondents took any proceeding

against the petitioners on that basis at any point in the intervening

two decades.

41. The decision in the case of ABL International Ltd. (Supra), was

cited by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners on the proposition

that a writ petition under Art. 226 is maintainable to rectify the

arbitrary action of the State or its instrumentality even in matters

arising out of contract, provided the facts necessary for adjudication

are not seriously disputed and rest substantially on the documents

on record. Having considered the findings recorded above, this Court

is of the opinion that the ratio in the said case is squarely attracted,

and the objection to maintainability raised by the respondents

accordingly fails. The principle in Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra)

equally applies, where a party that omitted to record or communicate

its reasons for withholding public money at the relevant time cannot,

2 decades later, construct a defence by affidavit that finds no

supporting material on record.

42. On a consideration of the entirety of the materials on record and the

submissions of learned counsel for both sides, this Court finds and

22

holds that the writ petition is maintainable, the essential facts

bearing on the petitioners' claim found being undisputed and

documentary, and the respondents' defences of statutory violation,

fraudulently engineered claims, and consequent lien/set-off being

unsubstantiated by any contemporaneous document or proceeding,

for the reasons recorded hereinabove. The petitioners are entitled to

refund of the Security Deposit of Rs. 1 Crore, no financial default

having been established or adjusted against it under Clause 15 of the

MoUs. The petitioners are further entitled to refund of the unadjusted

Cash Deposit Balance of Rs. 41,45,696/-, being unconsumed

advance premium, no part of which has been shown to have been

appropriated towards any liability of the petitioner No. 1.

43. Accordingly, WPA No. 23855 of 2006 stands allowed without order

as to costs. Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed

of.

44. The respondents are directed to refund to the petitioners the entire

sum of Rs. 1,41,45,696/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-One Lakh Forty-

Five Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Six only), comprising the

Security Deposit of Rs. 1 Crore without any interest on it, and the

unadjusted Cash Deposit Balance of Rs. 41,45,696/- with simple

23

interest @ 7 % per annum, within a period of one month from the

date of this judgment.

45. In the event the respondents fail to make payment of the aforesaid

sum along with interest within the period of one month stipulated

above, the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 1,41,45,696/- shall

thereafter carry interest at the rate of 9% (Nine per cent) per annum,

for the period of delay, until the date of actual payment.

46. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

47. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment downloaded

from the official website of the High Court at Calcutta.

48. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this Judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance of all the necessary and legal

formalities.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

P.A.