*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.No. 193/2003
% Date of decision: 1st May,2009
M/S RELIANCE ENTERPRISES .......Decree Holder
Through: Mr Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
Versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ....... Judgment Debtor
Through: Mr R.V. Sinha and Mr A.S. Singh,
Advocates.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The execution was filed of an arbitral award having the force of a decree. At the time of filing of the execution, a sum of Rs 7,20,074 was stated to be due. Vide ex parte order dated 19th May,2003 warrants of attachment to the extent of the aforesaid amount were issued in respect of the bank account of the judgment debtor. On the next date it transpired that the judgment debtor had preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996 with respect to the award sought to be executed and on which notice had been issued and which was pending. Vide order dated 28th July, 2003 on the statement of the counsel for the judgment debtor that pursuant to warrants of attachment the banker of the judgment debtor had remitted the sum of Rs 7,20,074/- to this court, the said amount was ordered to be kept in an FDR so that there was no loss of interest.
Ex.No.193/03 Page 1 of 4
2. Vide order dated 30th March, 2007 the objection of the judgment debtor to the award was dismissed and the amount of the FDR together with interest accrued thereon was ordered to be released in favour of the decree holder and the execution was disposed of. It subsequently transpired that pursuant to the warrants of attachment the money was never received in this court and consequentially had not been kept in a fixed deposit. The money had remained with the banker of the judgment debtor itself. The decree holder filed EA.No.31/2008 in this regard stating that till 31st January, 2008 a sum of Rs 14,07,660.94 was due under the arbitral award to the decree holder. The judgment debtor has filed a reply to the said application. The judgment debtor in the said reply had explained the circumstances in which the amount of Rs 7,20.074/- though intended to be remitted and a cheque therefor remitted in the name of the Registrar of this court, remained in the bank account of the judgment debtor only. The judgment debtor has further pleaded that since this court had on the application of the decree holder ordered attachment, the judgment debtor is not liable for any interest thereafter. Otherwise, no error has been pointed out in the calculation of the decree holder of a sum of Rs 14,07,660.94 being due as o 31st January, 2008.
3. The sum of Rs 7,20,074/- has since been deposited in this court and released in favour of the decree holder. The question now is whether the interest awarded to the decree holder under the award ceased to run on the attachment being ordered or continued to run. The contention of the judgment debtor is that even though pursuant to the attachment the bank of the judgment debtor did not remit the amount to this court, but its bank retained the said amount with Ex.No.193/03 Page 2 of 4 itself and not permitted the judgment debtor to withdraw the same or to use the same and thus the judgment debtor is not liable for any interest thereafter.
4. I have recently in M/s N.K. Garg & Co. Vs Union of India Ex.No. 336/2008 decided on 18th March, 2009 dealt with a similar question. It has been held that where the decree is for payment of interest till the date of payment, the date of filing of execution application is irrelevant and the interest allowed under the decree would not cease to run merely because the execution has been filed. It was further held that the interest will not cease to run even when attachment is effected and will continue to run even thereafter till the money is released to the judgment debtor. The running of the interest has been found to cease only on the day when there is no impediment to the decree holder withdrawing the money. Support in this regard was drawn from O.R.M. P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. S.L.Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1960 Madras 207 and Kali Charan Sharma Vs. NOIDA MANU/DE/1367/2008.
5. The counsel for the decree holder has also relied upon the order dated 22nd January, 2009 of Division Bench of this court in EFA(OS) 1/2007 holding that where a party chooses to challenge the decree before the appellate forum and the appeal court grants conditional stay, the amount deposited is only to keep the execution of the decree in abeyance and the amount so deposited is not akin to a tender of the amount to the decree holder and in such situation the interest would not stop running.
6. This it is found that the interest would continue to run till the date when the sum of Rs 7,20,074/- was ultimately deposited by the Ex.No.193/03 Page 3 of 4 judgment debtor in this court and when there was no impediment to the same being released to the decree holder. The balance amount due, be paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder within four weeks on a demand in writing in this regard being made by the decree holder on the judgment debtor. If the amount is not so paid inspite of demand, upon the decree holder filing an affidavit in this court to the effect that pursuant to this order demand has been made and has not been met, warrants of attachment of monies lying in account No.503547 of the judgment debtor with the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi to the extent of the balance amount stated to be due in the affidavit aforesaid of the decree holder be issued.
List for reporting compliance on 31st August, 2009.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) May 01, 2009 M Ex.No.193/03 Page 4 of 4