Delhi High Court
Klen & Marshalls Manufacturers & ... vs Power Grid Corporation Of India ... on 8 September, 2014
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.P. 31/2012
KLEN & MARSHALLS MANUFACTURERS &
EXPORTERS LTD ..... Decree Holder
Through: Mr. Ankit Parhar and Ms. Geetali
Talukdar, Advocates
versus
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF
INDIA LTD ..... Judgement Debtor
Through: Mr. Pawan Upadhyay and Mr. Sarvjit
Pratap Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 08.09.2014
EA (OS) 82/2012 (u/O. 21 R. 41 r/w. S. 151 CPC)
1. The learned counsel for the decree holder says that he does not wish
to press the captioned application.
2. Dismissed as not pressed.
EX.P. 31/2012
3. Vide award dated 09.05.2003, three sets of payments were awarded in
favour of the decree holder towards claim nos.I, II and III. Towards claim
no.I, decree holder was awarded a sum of USD 322553 and INR 82572.
3.1 In so far as claim nos. II and III are concerned, decree holder was
awarded a sum of USD 186855.
4. In respect of claim nos. II and III, interest was also awarded at the rate
of 6% p.a. w.e.f. 01.10.1999 till the date of its realization. Admittedly, the
judgment debtor herein deposited a sum of Rs.2,38,26,258/- equivalent to
USD 509408 (calculated at the rate of Rs.46.61 to a dollar) in the Debt
Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on 24.07.2003 pursuant to an order of the DRT
dated 15.07.2003.
5. The learned counsel for the decree holder says that since a sum of
Rs.2,38,26,258/- has not been released to the decree holder, interest on the
said amount at the rate of 12% p.a. would run.
5.1 Furthermore, interest is claimed also for the period between
09.05.2003 and 23.07.2003 as the leeway of two months given in the award
dated 09.05.2003 was not utilized by the judgment debtor to make the
payment. Therefore, interest, in any event, is claimed at the rate of 12% p.a.
between 09.05.2003 and 23.07.2003 i.e., the date prior to the date of deposit
made by the judgment debtor, with the DRT.
5.2 There is, however, no dispute that on USD 186855 interest would run
at the rate of 6% from 01.10.1999 till the date of payment as clarified by the
Division Bench of this court vide order dated 28.11.2011.
6. It is the common ground that the judgment debtor herein deposited the
amount in the DRT pursuant to a garnishee order issued by the DRT, which
is the order I referred to above, i.e., order dated 15.07.2003.
6.1 In so far as this issue is concerned, as to whether interest would run
on the amount deposited by the judgment debtor pursuant to orders of the
DRT dated 15.07.2003, the learned counsel for the decree holder has sought
to place reliance on the judgement of the learned single Judge of this court
in the case of Hindustan Construction Corporation Vs. DDA, (2002) 65
DRJ 43.
6.2 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the decree holder that
since payment was not released to the decree holder, interest would continue
to run in favour of the decree holder despite the deposit as directed by the
DRT.
7. In my view, this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that
judgment debtor herein has left with no choice but to comply with the order
of a legally constituted tribunal directing it deposit the decretal amount with
it. There is an element of legal compulsion.
7.1 The situation which is envisaged in the case of Hindustan
Construction Corporation is entirely different. The court has quite
correctly stated that where the judgment debtor in order to obtain a stay on
the execution of the decree seeks to deposit the money in court, would not,
amount to payment under Order 22 Rule 1 of the CPC to the decree holder,
and, hence, interest would run.
7.2 The situation which has emerged in the instant case is not pari
materia with the facts obtaining in the case of Hindustan Construction
Corporation Ltd.
7.3 The learned counsel for the decree holder is not able to cite any
precedent which would have bearing on facts of this case. There is no
provision of law cited before me which would have me come to the
conclusion that where judgment debtor deposits money in court/ tribunal
pursuant to a specific direction in that regard, interest will run in favour of
the decree holder. This contention of the decree holder will thus have to be
rejected. If one were to look to an analogous principle, the provisions of
Order 21 Rule 46F of the CPC would perhaps be apposite.
8. In so far as other aspect is concerned, which is non payment of
interest on the awarded amount between 09.05.2003 and 23.07.2003, the
decree holder is correct, especially, in the circumstances that the judgment
debtor accepts that they were aware of the award when, it was pronounced
i.e., on 09.05.2003.
8.1 As directed in the award, if payment was not made within two
months, judgment debtor was required to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the
date of the award in respect of amounts mentioned in paragraph 33(iii) of the
award.
8.2 Accordingly, the decree holder would be entitled to claim interest for
the period between 09.05.2003 till 23.07.2003.
9. The parties in the light of the clarification now issued, would revisit
their calculations and file, if possible, a common calculation before this
court, prior to the next date of hearing. If an agreed figure of the amount
payable to the decree holder cannot be arrived at then, the parties shall file
their separate calculations.
10. List on 08.12.2014.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014
yg
