* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: May 21, 2009
Date of Order: July 01, 2009
+ Ex.P.No.88/2007
% 01.07.2009
SH.K.C.SHARMA THR LEGAL HEIRS ...Petitioner
Through : Mr. Vivekanand, Adv.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTORITY ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
ORDER
1. By this order, I intend to deal with the objections raised by JD regarding calculations of interest while considering the total decretal amount payable by the JD. Award in this case was passed by the Arbitrator awarding 18% per annum simple interest from the date of award till payment to the claimant. Against the award the JD preferred objections which were upheld by Single Judge of this Court and the award was accordingly modified. However, decree holder preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench reversed the order of the Single Judge and the award was restored to its original position. JD then preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court. However, after the appeal of decree holder was allowed by the Ex.P. No.88/2007 Page 1 of 4 Division Bench, this Court issued warrants of attachment and the decretal amount was attached and recovered from the JD but before it could be paid to the decree holder, the JD got an interim injunction from the Supreme Court and in view of this injunction, amount could not be paid to the decree holder. After dismissal of the SLP, the amount lying in the Court was paid to the decree holder.
2. The contention of the JD is that JD is not liable to pay further interest from the date when amount was attached till the injunction was vacated and SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
3. Where a decree holder is compelled to file an Execution Petition, since the amount is not voluntarily paid by the JD, the JD is liable to pay interest in accordance with the decree upto the date of recovery of amount from the JD. Once the amount is recovered from the JD, the liability of JD to pay the interest normally is not there. But where JD prefers an appeal or SLP and obtains a stay against disbursement of the amount to the decree holder, then the recovery effected from the JD is of no use for the decree holder and the amount in fact remains in the Court as property of the JD, subject to final outcome of the SLP or appeal. The interest as awarded under the decree does not stop because of the fact that amount was recovered from the JD. Interest would stop only if the amount recovered can be paid to the decree holder without hindrance. If the amount recovered cannot be paid to the decree holder because of an injunction obtained by the JD, the interest cannot stop running.
Ex.P. No.88/2007 Page 2 of 4
4. In the present case, though the amount was recovered from the JD but before it could be paid to the decree holder, the JD told the Court not to pay the amount since it had obtained a stay against the payment of amount from the Supreme Court. Thus, the amount lying in the Court, though recovered from the JD, could not be paid to the decree holder in satisfaction of the decree and therefore JD was liable to pay interest in terms of decree till vacation of the stay from the Supreme Court, when this amount could actually be paid to the decree holder. No interest can be charged from the JD after the amount has been recovered by attachment and is payable to the decree holder without any hindrance from the JD but it is not paid to the decree holder for any reason or cause on the part of the decree holder, say the decree holder has died and the amount is to be paid to the legal heirs or there is laxity on the part of the decree holder in moving the Court after attachment of the amount in getting the amount released in its favour.
5. In the present case, the JD obtained a stay from the Supreme Court and till the stay was vacated, the JD was liable to pay the interest in terms of the award. I therefore consider that the plea taken by the JD that the JD was not liable to pay interest after recovery of amount from it despite an injunction obtained by the JD, is not tenable. JD shall be liable to pay interest in terms of the award upto the date of the order of the Supreme Court vacating the stay, i.e., upto 3rd November, 2008 and the amount already recovered shall be Ex.P. No.88/2007 Page 3 of 4 adjusted against the amount due as on 3rd November, 2008. However, if any part of the principal amount after adjusting the amount still remains unpaid, the JD would be liable to pay interest on that principal amount till recovery. JD is directed to pay the balance amount, if any, in terms of this order within 2 weeks from today.
List on 16th September, 2009.
July 01, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ak
Ex.P. No.88/2007 Page 4 of 4