Bombay High Court

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd vs Unique Integated Transport And ... on 3 September, 2025

2025:BHC-OS:14382

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.902 OF 2017
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.485 OF 2014

Unique Integrated Transport And
Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner
Versus
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ....Respondent

ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.23065 OF 2021
IN
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.165 OF 2005

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ....Applicant
Versus
Unique Integrated Transport And
Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent

Dr. Kishan Khanna, Advocate for Petitioner in CHS/902/2017
and for Respondent in IAL/23065/2021.
Mr. Niranjan Prabhakar Shimpi, Advocate for Respondent in
CHS/902/2017 and for Petitioner in IAL/23065/2021.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

RESERVED ON : AUGUST 20, 2025

PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

JUDGMENT :

Context and Factual Background:

1. The captioned proceedings evoke the infamous adage about how

the woes of the Indian litigant start when he obtains a decree. This is a

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

case of an arbitral award dated February 22, 2000 (" Arbitral Award"),

passed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 ("Old Act"). Till date, the

parties are engaged in proceedings in relation to drawing up of a decree

in terms of the Arbitral Award, which partly allowed claims raised by

Unique Integrated Transport & Management Consultancies Private

Limited ("Unique") against Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

("MTNL").

2. Multiple judges of this Court have had occasion to handle the

underlying proceedings since the year 2000. They have repeatedly

indicated how the decree must be drawn up. Some payments have been

made by MTNL to Unique, but 25 years later, the parties are still locked

in battle over how to compute interest.

3. In Chamber Summons 902 of 2017 ("CS 902") Unique has

prayed that the interest awarded, as computed until the date on which

the decree was to be drawn up, be treated as the principal amount for

further computation of interest. This is resisted by MTNL on the

premise that such computation would constitute compound interest.

4. Worse, MTNL has filed Interim Application (L) No. 23065 of

2021 ("IA 23065"), raising the very same contentions that have been

emphatically dismissed multiple times by various Benches of this

Court, to seek a refund of monies allegedly paid in excess of what is due

to Unique.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

5. The Arbitral Award was challenged in Arbitration Petition No.

260 of 2000, which was dismissed by an order dated February 25,

2002. A challenge to this order (Appeal No. 575 of 2002) was

dismissed by an order dated July 15, 2002 ( "July 2002 Order"). Special

Leave Petition No. 23860-23861 of 2002 filed by MTNL challenging

the July 2002 Order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on December

3, 2003.

2004 Order:

6. After losing all the way to the Supreme Court, MTNL took out

Chamber Summons No. 751 of 2004 seeking to challenge the amount

computed as payable under the Arbitral Award, contending that Claims

No. 3 to 13 are absorbed in Claim No. 14. This was the first attempt at

excluding interest on claims awarded other than those under Claim 1

and Claim 14. This was repelled by a Learned Single Judge ( S.C.

Dharmadhikari J.) by a judgement dated August 5, 2004 (" 2004

Order").

2007 Order:

7. This should have brought an end to the litigation and the parties

ought to have moved on to honouring what had been upheld all the way

to the Supreme Court. However, this was not to be. Arbitration

Petition 165 of 2005 for drawing up a decree in terms of the Arbitral

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

Award was allowed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court ( S.A. Bobde

J.) on December 11, 2007, directing that a decree be drawn up in terms

of the Arbitral Award.

2010 Orders:

8. Eventually, a report of the Taxing Master dated November 12,

2009, in terms of which the decree was to be drawn up, came up for

challenge by MTNL. The report wrongly indicated that MTNL had

made an interim payment on October 17, 2000 - this date ought to

have been October 6, 2000. Disposing of MTNL's Chamber Summons

No. 204 of 2010, a Learned Single Judge ( Roshan Dalvi J.) directed by

an order dated April 5, 2010 ("First 2010 Order"), that the date be

corrected and the decree be drawn up in terms of a report of Taxing

Master dated November 12, 2009, within a week, with execution to

follow, with the only correction being to the date on which the first

payment had been made by MTNL.

9. Another Learned Single Judge (S.J. Vazifdar J.) passed an order

dated September 27, 2010 ("Second 2010 Order") in Chamber

Summons 1083 of 2010 directing that the Taxing Master's report dated

November 12, 2009 was final subject to only one correction - the

change of the date of receipt of the first payment from October 17, 2000

to October 6, 2000. This order directed that the only change to the

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

Taxing Master's report could be the correction in the date and nothing

else.

2013 Order:

10. The matter did not end there. Another motion was necessitated.

This time, Chamber Summons No. 172 of 2012 came up before another

Learned Single Judge (R.D. Dhanuka J.) who had considered an order

dated March 21, 2011 of the Taxing Master to find that it had gone way

beyond the directions issued by the Learned Single Judge of this Court

by her order dated April 5, 2010. This Chamber Summons was

disposed of by an order dated September 27, 2013 (" 2013 Order") that

there was no question of making any changes beyond what had been

directed three and half years earlier by the Learned Single Judge of this

Court on April 5, 2010. The Taxing Master's order dated March 21,

2011 was set aside.

11. In this round, it was explicitly argued by MTNL that interest

could not be computed on each claim awarded by the Learned Arbitral

Tribunal and that interest ought to be allowed only on Claims No. 1 and

14. This was dealt with in detail. Extracting the component of the

Arbitral Award relating to award of interest, the Learned Single Judge

explicitly held that interest was payable on all the heads of claims

allowed. It was clarified that interest would apply on the basis of

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

simple interest and not compound interest. The following extracts of

the 2013 Order are noteworthy:-

6. Since the learned Taxing Master did not consider interest on Claim Nos.3 to 13, I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the issue of interest awarded by the learned arbitrator. On perusal of para 8 at page 23 of the impugned award, in my view it is clear that the learned arbitrator has awarded interest in favour of the Claimant (judgment creditor herein) on the claims which were considered allowed out of the claims i.e. Claim Nos. 1 to 25 by the learned arbitrator for the pre reference period as well as for the future interest. Learned arbitrator has specifically rejected the claim for interest for pendente lite. It is clear that the rate of interest provided is @ 15% p.a. from the due date till 7th May 1988 when the learned arbitrator entered upon the reference. In so far as future interest is concerned, it is also made clear in the said award that if the amount as directed to be paid by the learned arbitrator in the said award was not paid within three months from the date of the said award, respondents (judgment debtor herein) were directed to pay interest on the amounts awarded against the claims @ 15 % p.a. It is clear that learned arbitrator has not awarded any compound interest but has awarded simple interest from the date of award till payment @ 15%.

I am not agreeable to accept the submission of Ms Shah learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor that learned arbitrator has awarded interest only on the amount of retention money and not other claims.

7. Since learned Taxing Master has not considered this part of award which provided for payment of interest on the claims awarded for the pre- reference period and also future interest on the premise that judgment creditor ought to have obtained specific clarification from the Court, the order passed by the Taxing Master deserves to be set aside. It appears from the order passed by the Taxing Master that this Court by two earlier orders had clarified as what shall be considered by the Taxing Master,

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

however various other issues raised by the parties have been considered. I am not inclined to accept the submission of Ms Shah learned counsel appearing for the respondent that order passed by the learned Taxing Master cannot be set aside on the ground that the same has not been impugned in the chamber summons by the applicants. On perusal of the chamber summons, it is clear that the applicants seek that the order passed by this Court on earlier two occasions shall be complied with by the learned Taxing Master of this Court. On perusal of the affidavit in support of chamber summons, it is clear that the chamber summons has been filed in view of the applicant having been aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Taxing Master. I am thus not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondent that for want of prayer specifically for setting aside the order passed by the Taxing Master, this Court cannot set aside the said order. I accordingly pass the following order.

(a) The order passed by learned Taxing Master on 21st March 2011 is set aside. It is made clear that the Taxing Master shall recalculate the decreetal amount payable to the judgment creditor in compliance with the orders passed by this Court on 5 th April 2010 and 27th September 2010 by considering the report dated 12th November 2009.

(b) As far as interest is concerned, interest shall be calculated by the learned Taxing Master on the basis of the award as clarified by this Court by this Order.

(c) Both the parties are at liberty to file their respective calculations based on the orders passed by this Court earlier and based on this order which shall be considered by the learned Taxing Master expeditiously and not later than six weeks from today.

(d) It is made clear that whatever payments are made by the respondent

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

till date, shall be considered while considering the amount payable, if any, to the judgment creditor.

(e) Chamber summons is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

12. In substance, the 2013 Order is a corollary to what had been

argued and concluded in the 2004 Order - just a decade later, the same

contention is being raised in a different manner. Neither the 2004

Order nor the 2013 Order have been challenged. The 2013 Order

makes two important clarifications, namely, that interest under the

Arbitral Award is payable on all the claims awarded and not just Claims

1 and 14; and that interest is to be computed as simple interest and not

compound interest. Yet, even such a firm order of this Court passed 12

years ago has not been enough for putting an end to the controversy.

13. Unique has been of the view that the decretal amount computed

in terms of the Taxing Master's Report dated November 12, 2009

should simply be rectified in terms of the First 2010 Order as endorsed

in the Second 2010 Order i.e. no correction other than the date of the

first payment of MTNL ought to be effected. MTNL relied upon the

declaration in the 2013 Order that compound interest is not applicable,

to contend that the inclusion of the interest component taken into

account in that Taxing Master's report should be rectified. However,

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

inexplicably, MTNL would repeatedly and till date keep contending

that interest should be computed only on Claims No. 1 and 14.

2015 Order:

14. Unique had filed another Chamber Summons No. 485 of 2014

seeking that the decree should be in conformity with its reading of the

2013 Order. It is contended by Unique that on April 29, 2015, when the

matter was called out, Dr. Khanna had to rush to hospital on an

emergency due to his wife's health taking a turn for the worse but

Learned Counsel for MTNL misrepresented to the Court that he has not

been attending court. By an order dated April 29, 2015 (" 2015 Order"),

a Learned Single Judge (S.C. Gupte J.) took note of MTNL's submission

that a Taxing Master's report dated January 30, 2014 had dealt with the

2013 Order to conclude that the balance principal amount due was Rs.

4.96 lakhs with another amount of Rs. 4.24 lakh towards interest

computed until September 27, 2013 (the date of the 2013 Order).

15. The 2015 Order noted that computing further interest with effect

from September 28, 2013, a payment of Rs. 9.58 lakh had been made to

Unique by April 15, 2014. Noting that no further orders are required,

the Chamber Summons was disposed of. Unique took out Notice of

Motion No. 1145 of 2015 highlighting that owing to a health emergency,

Dr. Khanna had to leave Court and therefore his version had not been

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

heard. This was allowed by an order dated September 23, 2015 and

Chamber Summons No. 485 of 2014 was restored to file.

2014 Report:

16. Since a fresh report dated January 30, 2014 (" 2014 Report") had

been filed by the Taxing Master, Chamber Summons No. 485 of 2014

was withdrawn seeking leave to impugn the 2014 Report. This led to

the filing of CS 902 (filed with Lodging No. 1841 of 2015), impugning

the 2014 Report. That is one of the two captioned proceedings pending

even today.

17. Six years later, in 2021, MTNL filed IA 23065, claiming to have

realised that excess payment has been made to Unique. The very

foundation of this realisation is that interest is not payable on any claim

other than Claim No. 1 and 14 an issue long-settled by this Court.

Analysis and Findings:

18. Pleadings by the parties are aggressive and intemperate.

However, both Dr. Kishan Khanna for Unique and Mr. Narayan Shimpi

for MTNL have conducted the proceedings before me in a very polite

demeanour and have assisted me with clarity on the respective

positions canvassed by them. With their assistance, I have examined

the record to provide a specific final confirmation of the manner of

computation of the decretal amount.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

19. I called upon each side to present its computation in compliance

with the orders already passed. On the face of it, MTNL's computation

seeks to re-agitate what had been put to rest in the 2013 Order. Mr.

Shimpi fairly states that the 2013 Order had not been challenged by

MTNL. In fact, it was MTNL's case as presented to the Learned Single

Judge, which led to the 2015 Order, based on which, MTNL had already

computed and paid the amounts payable in compliance with the 2013

Order. For MTNL to then state eight years later in 2021, that it realised

that it had overpaid, because interest was payable only on Claims No. 1

and 14 is simply untenable and unsustainable.

20. In short, MTNL is seeking to set the clock back by re-agitating

the controversy that had been put to rest by the 2013 Order. Serious

resources of the parties and indeed this Court too get pre-empted by

untenable proceedings such as these being filed and pursued.

21. Unique's claim that the Taxing Master's report dated November

12, 2009 should simply be adopted without any change other than the

correction of the date of receipt of the first installment requires

consideration.

22. For clarity, it may be pointed out that the Arbitral Award grants

interest at the rate of 15% from October 1, 1990 to May 7, 1998, which is

the date on which the Learned Arbitral Tribunal entered upon the

reference. The Arbitral Award has denied interest pendente lite.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

Providing for a period of three months after the passing of the Arbitral

Award, future interest has been awarded at 15% per annum after such

period i.e. with effect from May 22, 2000 until realisation of amounts

awarded.

23. As seen from the extract of the 2013 Order set out above, the

Learned Single Judge specifically clarified that interest would need to

be computed on all the claims awarded. This is the position obtaining

as of the date of the First 2010 Order. However, the 2013 Order also

held that interest should be computed on the basis of simple interest

and not compound interest. The 2013 Order required the decree to be

drawn up with the aforesaid two clarifications being implemented.

24. Therefore, one must examine the effect of the Court having

stipulated that interest should be computed as simple interest and not

as compound interest, and whether the principal amount on which

future interest after May 22, 2000 is to be computed, is just the

aggregate of the amounts awarded (Rs. 7.19 lakh) or whether it should

be computed on what would have been the decretal amount as of May

22, 2000 i.e. the awarded sum with interest thereon.

25. I have compared the computation canvassed on behalf of Unique

and the computation by the Taxing Master in the 2014 Report.

Evidently, all the amounts under each head of claim as awarded and

primary interest thereon is identical in both computations. The 2014

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

Report removes a sum of Rs. 30,000 under Claim No. 20 on the

premise that this is adjusted against Claim No. 14 in the November 12,

2009 report.

26. What Unique seeks to contend is that the Taxing Master's Report

dated November 12, 2009 had arrived at the decretal amount of Rs.

14.44 lakh. The further interest (post-Arbitral Award), according to

Unique, should be computed on the base amount of Rs. 14.44 lakh and

not just the amount of Rs. 7.19 lakh awarded in the aggregate in the

Arbitral Award. This is the heart of the real controversy remaining in

these proceedings. That every head of claim awarded is amenable to

interest has been clearly held in the 2013 Order, which has attained

finality. As stated above, it is not permissible for MTNL to reopen that

finding. The amounts awarded aggregate to Rs. 7.19 lakh, as accurately

computed in the 2014 Report. The interest computed in terms of the

Arbitral Award until May 7, 1998 is Rs. ~6.95 lakh.

27. One has to examine the interest accruing post-Arbitral Award.

Towards this end, the payments made by MTNL to Unique must be

noticed, and are set out below:-

1. Payment of Rs. ~3.75 lakh on October 6, 2000;

2. Payment of Rs. ~10.14 lakh on October 26, 2004;

3. Payment of Rs. ~2.41 lakh on September 6, 2010; and

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

4. Payment of Rs. ~9.60 lakh on April 8, 2014

28. The 2014 Report was prepared after the first three of the

aforesaid payments while the fourth payment is after the 2014 Report.

The core issue to be answered is whether the base amount on which

future interest would be computed should include the pre-award

interest amount, or if future interest should be computed solely on the

aggregate of the amounts awarded excluding the pre-award interest.

29. This is an issue that has been considered by the Supreme Court

and the law has been authoritatively declared in circumstances very

similar to the matter at hand. In D. Khosla1, the Supreme Court was

considering a near-identical situation, in the context of an arbitral

award made under the Old Act, with elements of pre-award interest

and future interest, with the District Court and the High Court

excluding the pre-award interest amount from the base amount on

which interest was to be computed.

30. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings to exclude

the pre-award interest component from the base amount on which

future interest would accrue. The following extracts, at the risk of

appearing to be a prolix reproduction, are relevant, considering the

near-similarity with the matter at hand:-

1 M/s D. Khosla & Co. Vs. The Union of India - 2024 INSC 587

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

6. A simple reading of the aforesaid decree reveals that interest has been awarded in two parts on the amount of Rs.21,56,745/- i.e. (i) 12% per annum on the awarded amount up to the date of award; and (ii) 15% per annum from the date of award till the realization of the decretal amount.

7. It appears that the petitioner was paid the principal amount of compensation awarded and interest of 12% and 15% for the two periods i.e. pre-award and postaward on the principal amount awarded. However, petitioner was not satisfied and he moved execution for the realization of certain amount as shortfall of the interest. The petitioner contended that insofar as 15% interest is concerned, it is payable on the principal amount of compensation awarded plus 12% simple interest on the said amount. In other words, petitioner sought to include 12% interest in the principal amount of compensation awarded for the purposes of claiming 15% simple interest for the post- award period.

8. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhalia, in Execution Petition No.9 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner, refused to accept the contention of the petitioner so as to award 15% interest on the principal amount of compensation awarded plus 12% simple interest thereof. In a way, he declined to grant interest upon interest for the reason that the Arbitrator has not awarded it in so many words.

9. In the petition preferred by the petitioner before the High Court, the same view was adopted by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 06.09.2013. It held that as the Arbitrator had used word 'simple interest' and had not specifically awarded compound interest, therefore, the petitioner is only entitled to simple interest @ 12% per annum on the amount awarded as compensation for the pre-award period and simple interest @ 15% per annum for the post-award period only on the amount of compensation awarded.

******

13. In the instant case, the arbitrator had granted interest for two separate periods on the principal sum adjudged only and there is no direction that the interest for the subsequent period would be payable on the principal sum adjudged including interest for the first period.

14. The sole simple issue herein for our opinion is whether interest is payable on interest or whether 15% interest per annum awarded would be on the principal sum award plus 12% per annum interest on it for the preaward period.

15. Section 29 of the Act provides that the court may in the decree order interest at the rate deemed reasonable to be paid on the principal sum as adjudged by the award meaning thereby in drawing the decree, the court may order for payment of interest on the principal sum as adjudged by the award. In other words, the court cannot order for payment of interest on interest but only on the principal sum adjudged.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

16. Since the award under the Act is in the nature of a decree in terms of Section 17 of the aforesaid Act, it attracts the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure also to a limited extent namely insofar as award of interest is concerned and for the execution of the decree drawn pursuant to the award.

17. Section 34 of the CPC provides that where the decree is for payment of money, the court may order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged. Again, the reading of the aforesaid Sub-Section (1) of Section 34 CPC would reveal that the interest is payable on the principal sum adjudged and not on interest part of the award.

18. The Interest Act, 1978 vide Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 specifically lays down that nothing in Section 3 which permits the court to award interest shall empower the court to award interest upon interest. It means that ordinarily the courts are not entitled to award interest upon interest unless specifically provided either under any statute or under the terms and conditions of the contract.

*****

23. In the light of the above legal provisions and the case law on the subject, it is evident that ordinarily courts are not supposed to grant interest on interest except where it has been specifically provided under the statute or where there is specific stipulation to that effect under the terms and conditions of the contract. There is no dispute as to the power of the courts to award interest on interest or compound interest in a given case subject to the power conferred under the statutes or under the terms and conditions of the contract but where no such power is conferred ordinarily, the courts do not award interest on interest.

24. Neither the Act specifically empowers the Arbitrator or the court to award interest upon interest or compound interest nor there is any other provision which provides for grant of compound interest or interest upon interest. Even Section 34 CPC is silent in this regard whereas Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Interest Act specifically prohibits the same.

27. A plain reading of the aforesaid award and decree reveals that interest awarded under the award has been dissected into two parts. The first part relates to the pre-award period from the date of the completion of the work till the passing of the award whereas the second part is the post-award period commencing from the date of the award till the satisfaction of the award. In the first part, simple interest @ 12% per annum has been awarded on the 'amount awarded' whereas in the second part, interest @ 15% per annum has been awarded referring to the 'amount awarded'. The amount awarded in both the situations have to be the same and cannot be two distinct amounts. The 'amount awarded' refers to the principal amount of compensation awarded that is Rs.21,56,745/-. The award and the decree nowhere specifically contemplate for

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

awarding 15% interest per annum on the amount awarded including the interest component i.e. the pre-award interest. This could not have been done even otherwise as there is no provision to that effect under the relevant statutes or the contract. No material has been placed before us or as a matter of fact before any court below to show that the terms and conditions of the contract contained any such provision.

28. In the light of the above discussion, we do not deem it appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India so as to interfere with the opinion expressed concurrently by the two courts below. Therefore, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

[Emphasis Supplied]

31. Quite clearly, Unique's position is that the base amount on which

interest should start getting computed with effect from May 22, 2000 is

Rs. 14.44 lakh. This amount includes the pre-award interest computed

from October 1, 1990 to May 7, 1998. The aggregate of the amount

awarded is Rs. 7.19 lakh in terms of the Taxing Master's Report dated

November 12, 2009. That report had erroneously taken the first date of

payment by MTNL as October 17, 2000, instead of October 6, 2000.

This is the correction directed in the First 2010 Order. However, the

2013 Order not only reiterated that correction, but also clearly

confirmed in Unique's favour that interest would be payable on all the

heads of claims allowed and also that simple interest was to be

computed and not compound interest.

32. The 2013 Order has been embraced by both parties. This makes

it explicitly clear that akin to D. Khosla, in this case too, further post-

Arbitral Award interest was to be computed only on the aggregate

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

amounts awarded and not by also adding the pre-award interest

amount to the principal amount. On the face of it, such addition would

have the effect of compounding the interest in the first instance. That

is impermissible in terms of the law declared in D. Khosla.

33. I have examined the 2014 Report in this light. It rightly rejects

MTNL's contention that the first installment should be adjusted against

Claim No. 1 (thereby stopping the interest clock ticking on that

amount). Instead, the 2014 Report adjusts the amounts received

against the interest component first, and thereafter against the

principal amount. By this method, the 2014 Report indicates that the

aggregate interest component by October 6, 2000 was Rs. ~7.29 lakh

and the part payment is entirely absorbed only against interest without

reducing the principal amount of Rs. 7.19 on which interest is shown as

continuing to accrue.

34. The next payment of Rs. ~10.13 lakh was received on October 26,

2004. Further interest until this date was Rs. ~4.37 lakh, which

coupled with the outstanding interest after adjusting the first

installment which was Rs. ~3.54 lakh, aggregated to Rs. ~7.91 lakh. Out

of the Rs. ~10.13 lakh, this amount is adjusted first, and only the

residual Rs. ~2.22 lakh is reduced from the principal amount of Rs.

7.19 lakh, resulting in a balance of Rs. ~4.96 lakh, which is the new

principal amount on which further interest would accrue.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

35. The next payment by MTNL was of Rs. ~2.41 lakh on September

6, 2010, which was again first adjusted against the interest component

of Rs. 4.37 lakh, accruing on the diminished principal amount of Rs.

~4.96 lakh. The installment of Rs. ~2.41 lakh is absorbed entirely by

the interest accrued leaving a balance of interest of Rs. ~1.95 lakh.

36. The 2014 Report computes interest until September 27, 2013,

which is the date of the 2013 Order and also provides for continuing

accrual of interest on the balance principal sum of Rs. ~4.96 lakh until

full payment.

37. Now, simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on such

amount of Rs. ~4.96 lakh ought to be computed until April 8, 2014, on

which date, another payment of Rs. ~9.60 lakh was made by MTNL.

The amount of Rs. ~9.60 lakh actually paid ought to be adjusted first

against the interest amount, and the balance, if any, would then go

towards the principal amount of Rs. ~4.96 lakh. It would be necessary

for the Taxing Master to compute this amount and indicate if any

amount is still pending and due from MTNL to Unique, and if not, by

when the amounts owed got paid by the aforesaid method.

38. It is apparent that the decretal amount ought to be computed on

the basis of the report dated November 12, 2009 as adjusted for the

rectification of the date of the first payment by MTNL, as also for the

computation of interest as simple interest and indeed application of

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

interest on all amounts awarded (not just Claim No. 1 and 14). The

2014 Report has effected such computation. That needs to be updated

to adjust for the payment made by MTNL on April 8, 2014, and an

updated position as of today.

Order and Directions:

39. In these circumstances, the following order is passed:-

1. IA 23065 is untenable, and deserves to be dismissed with

the observation that it seeks to reopen matters that were

closed by the 2013 Order and had in fact been closed right

since the 2004 Order. The Interim Application (L.) No.

23065 of 2021 hereby dismissed;

2. The Taxing Master shall provide a computation as required

in the aforesaid paragraph further building upon the 2014

Report to also account for subsequent payments by MTNL,

using only the aggregate of the awarded amounts as the

principal amount and excluding the pre-award interest

component from the principal;

3. Such computation and a draft decree in those terms shall

be submitted for my review within a period of two weeks

from the upload of this judgement on the website of this

Court;

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 Aarti Palkar

1.CHS.902.2017.doc

4. Once the aforesaid are placed for my consideration, I shall

take a final view and pass an order directing the drawing

up of a decree;

5. I am deferring the consideration of the quantum of costs

payable by the parties for the multiple proceedings since

2000 for the next stage when I finalise the decree; and

6. List these proceedings with the updated report of the

Taxing Master and draft decree for my consideration on

September 23, 2025. I intend to pass final orders in

disposal of CS 902 on that date.