9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying how interest was to be calculated. This portion, thus, does not detract from the fact that the decree is in terms of the compromise deed. Merely because some other minor changes, which appeared to be inadvertent changes, have crept in, do not also detract from the fact that the decree is in terms of the compromise deed. We also do not find any uncertainty in the decree. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 16814 OF 1996 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2003 - S.N. VARIAVA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ. S.K. Jain, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Thanvi and Anil Vyas for the Appellant. Anil B Divan, S. Ganesh, Rishi Agarwal, Mahesh Agarwal and E.C. Agrawala for the Respondent. JUDGMENT S.N. Variava, J. - This appeal is against an order dated 13th September, 1996 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The Appellants had sanctioned a loan to the Respondents against security of a mortgage. As the Respondents failed to repay the loan the Appellants filed an application under sections 31(1)( a ) and ( c ) and 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,89,265.88. Parties compromised the dispute and signed a deed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been attached." [Emphasis supplied] Payments were not made, as contemplated by the compromise deed. The Appellants thus initiated execution proceedings on 5th February, 1987. As has become common nowadays, the Respondents filed an application under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. They thus managed to effectively delay execution. Unfortunately for the Respondents the Board directed winding up of the Respondent company. The Respondents filed an appeal before A.A.I.F.R. The Respondents submitted a rehabilitation scheme wherein it was shown that a sum of Rs. 62.72 lakhs was to be paid to the Appellants. On 18th August, 1994 A.A.I.F.R. passed an order directing that a sum of Rs. 62.72 lakhs be paid to the Appellants so that the properties could be released from mortgage. The Respondents do not pay the amount. They now cannot also delay execution any longer. 4. On 27th September, 1995 i.e. more than 9 years after the execution proceedings were filed, the Respondents file an application, under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code objecting to the calculation of interest with half yearly rests. The executing Court overruled the objections and directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,806.83 be decreed in favour of the applicant and against the Defendant. Compromise be attached to decree. Instalments be paid as mentioned in the compromise Order issued on the matter of interest also. Decree be prepared as per Order passed today. Compromise be attached to the Decree". [Emphasis supplied] 7. It was submitted that after hearing arguments the Court whilst passing the decree in terms of the compromise modified the compromise deed in three aspects viz. ( a ) the increased rate of interest was to be payable with effect from 1st January, 1978 instead of 1st January, 1977 ( b ) the Court did not allow charging of interest on half yearly rests basis ( c ) expenses were not permitted. It was submitted that the final decree which had been drawn up contained the abovementioned three differences. It was also submitted, rather faintly, that the Appellants themselves understood that in the final decree interest had not been granted on half yearly basis. The application for execution of decree was shown to Court. It was submitted that paragraph 7 clearly indicates that the Appellants themselves understood that they had not been granted interest with half yearly rests. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the case of Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman [1970] 1 SCC 670. In this case it had been held that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. It has been held that the executing Court must take the decree according to its tenor. It was held that the executing Court cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or in fact. It was held that the decree, even if erroneous, is binding between the parties. 11. Reliance is also placed on the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority v. Leelamma Valson [2002] 2 SCC 573. In this case a decree was passed in terms of the award given by the arbitrators. The decree provided for interest only up to the date of the decree. Thereafter an application, under section 114 Civil Procedure Code, was made for modification of the decree on the ground that "by an accidental slip, omission or oversight" future interest from the date of the decree to payment had not been provided for. This application was rejected. It was held that there was no omission or slip. It was held that the Court had not granted any future interest. No appeal was filed against this order. In the execution proceedings futu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be re-agitated at a subsequent stage. Based on the above authorities Mr. Diwan submitted that the decree being clear the executing Court could not go beyond the decree on the basis that there was a mistake in the decree. He submitted that the decree had been passed after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties on what the final decree should be as per the compromise deed. He submitted that even on principles of res judicata the Appellants are precluded from now contending that they were entitled to interest on half yearly basis. 15. Finally Mr. Diwan made a Prejudice Offer. He stated that the respondents are willing to pay to the Appellants a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs in full and final settlement of all the claims of the Appellants. 16. We have considered the rival submissions. There can be no dispute to the proposition that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. There can be no dispute that the executing Court must take the decree according to its tenor. Also as has been set out in the Greater Cochin Development Authority s case ( supra ) when a decree is in terms of an award/document then the terms of that document have to be looked at. In this case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
