Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Balbir Singh & Ors. on 10 December, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th December, 2012
+ CM (M) No.874/2011
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
BALBIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.S. Gautam, Adv. for R-1 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The short question that arises for determination in this Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the Petitioner would be
under obligation to pay the interest even after deposit of the cheque of the
award amount with the Claims Tribunal, if notice of deposit was not
given by the Petitioner, who was the judgment debtor before the Claims
Tribunal.
2. It is admitted case of the parties that an award of `1,44,000/- along with
interest @ 12% per annum for a period of seven years till the date of the
award, that is, 11.07.1995 and with interest @ 18% per annum, if there
was default in the payment of amount within 30 days from the date of the
order was passed by the Claims Tribunal.
3. The amount of `2,71,060/- was deposited (which was less by a sum of
`9360/-) by cheque by the Petitioner with the Claims Tribunal.
Respondents No.1 to 4 filed an Execution Petition on 13.05.2007 on the
premise that the amount is still not been deposited. At that time, it
transpired that the cheuqe was lying deposited with the Claims Tribunal.
4. When the Execution Petition came up for consideration before the Claims
Tribunal on 25.01.2011 on consideration of provision of Order XXI Rule
1 CPC, the Claims Tribunal opined that since notice of deposit was not
send by the decree holder (DH) to the judgment debtors (JDs), they
would be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the
passing of the award till 24.09.2008 when the cheques of the amount
were handed over to the DH.
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Claimants
themselves were also to be blamed for the predicament in which they
were placed as they waited for almost 12 years to take out the execution.
The provision of Order XXI Rule 1 CPC are very clear and categorical.
The same are extracted hereunder:-
"ORDER XXI. EXECUTION OF DECREES AND ORDERS
Payment under decree
[1. Modes of paying money under decree
(1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows,
namely :-
(a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree,
or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or
(b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or
through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is
evidenced in writing; or
(c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs.
(2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of
sub rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the
decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by
registered post, acknowledgement due.
(3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank
under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1), the money order or
payment through bank, as the case may be, shall accurately state
the following particulars, namely : -
(a) the number of the original suit;
(b) the names of the parties or where there are more than two
plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as the case may be, the
names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendants;
(c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say,
whether it is towards the principal, interest or costs;
(d) the number of the execution case of the Court, where such case
is pending; and
(e) the name and address of the payer.
(4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule
(1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the
notice referred to in sub-rule (2).
(5) On any amount paid under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) interest, if
any, shall cease to run from the date of such payment :
Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal
order or payment through a bank, interest shall cease to run from
the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he
avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through
bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which money
would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of
business of the postal authorities or the bank, as the case may be."
6. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.
Smt. Poonam Pahwa & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 100, in similar circumstances
held that the JD would be liable to pay interest unless he gives notice of
deposit to the decree holder. Para 34 of the report is extracted
hereunder:-
"34. After the amendment of Order XXI, Rule 1 in 1976, there is no
scope for any controversy as to the liability of the judgment-debtor
when the decretal amount is deposited in Court but the notice of
such deposit is not given to the decree-holder. It is imperative that
the judgment-debtor has to give notice to the decree-holder about
deposit for the decretal amount. Since motor accident in the instant
case had taken place on 7-5-1983, Order XXI, Rule 1 as amended
in 1976 is clearly applicable. Even otherwise also, the provision of
Order XXI, Rule 1 being a procedural law, amended provisions of
Order XXI, Rule 1 are applicable even if the accident had taken
place prior to 1976 because such amendment of procedural law is
retrospective in its operation."
7. Thus, there is no error or infirmity in the order dated 25.01.2011. The
Petition is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 10, 2012
vk
