Sh. K.C.Sharma Thru Legal Heirs vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 2405 Del

*         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

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.

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

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