IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 16910 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 19.02.2009 Kusum Lata Kaushik ...Petitioner versus HUDA and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate, for the respondents. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of memo dated 31.01.2006 (Annexure P-3) to the extent it has imposed a condition that she will be permitted to transfer the Shop No. 27, Mahila Ashram Urban Estate, Karnal only if she withdraws her representation and give an affidavit not to file any court case. It is averred that in her representation referred to in the impugned memo Annexure P-3, the petitioner has challenged the entitlement of the respondents to claim compound interest. In other words, the respondents though have permitted the petitioner to transfer the subject plot, but with the condition that she must accept the imposition of 'compound interest'. C.W.P NO. 16910 OF 2007 -2- The question as to whether or not the respondents are entitled to charge compound interest is no longer open to debate. A Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P No. 12126 of 2007 decided on 06.12.2008 (Brij Lal Garg vs. HUDA and another) and C.W.P No. 17354 of 2007 decided on 06.01.2009 (Ram Gopal vs. HUDA and another), have held that the respondents are not entitled to levy compound interest and the delayed payments are recoverable along with interest as per the banking rates. For the reasons given by this Court in Brij Lal's case and Ram Gopal's case (supra), the writ petition is allowed. Clause 9 of the impugned letter dated 31.01.2006 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to transfer the subject plot without insisting upon payment of the compound interest. In case the petitioner has already paid the compound interest, the same shall be refunded to her within a period of two months. Disposed of. FEBRUARY 19, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE