Summary
The Court declined pendente lite interest on additional-FAR charges voluntarily deposited while the institutions challenged the levy. Refund followed a subsequent exemption, without any adjudication declaring the original demands unlawful. Claims arising from retention beyond the court-fixed refund deadline remained open for separate proceedings; no such compensation was awarded in these appeals.
Issues
- Whether refund following a subsequent exemption entitled the institutions to pendente lite interest on voluntarily deposited FAR charges.
- Whether compensation for retention beyond the refund deadline could be pursued separately.
Held
- The deposits were voluntarily offered to secure revised plans and proceed with construction while the notifications remained operative. The interim order only reserved examination of interest if the institutions succeeded; it did not promise an unconditional interest award. (¶¶ 10, 11, 13, 14)
- Refund resulted from a later exemption rather than a decision that the original notifications or demands were illegal. In those circumstances, restitution and the principle against prejudice caused by an act of court did not justify interest for the pendency period. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- For the second institution, rejection of pendente lite interest had also attained finality in earlier proceedings. Subsequent refund justified disposal of its contempt case, but a distinct claim concerning retention after the refund deadline could be pursued before the appropriate forum. (¶¶ 6, 15, 16)
- The first institution’s separate proceedings, and any corresponding remedy pursued by the second institution, were preserved with all parties’ contentions open, including entitlement, loss, benefit and rate of compensation for the later retention period. (¶¶ 14, 16)
Result
Appeals disposed of without costs. No pendente lite interest granted; remedies concerning retention beyond the ordered refund period preserved, with all contentions open.