9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Satish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. - The only surviving issue in this execution petition is as to whether out of the amount of Rs. 1,84,904.52 deposited by the judgment debtor in this court, the decree holder is entitled to a sum of Rs. 66,578.17 only as contended by the judgment debtor or to the entire amount as contended by the decree holder. The answer to the said issue depends upon whether the deposits made by the judgment debtor in the court after filing of the execution petition are to be appropriated first towards interest as contended by the decree holder or first towards the principal amount as contended by the judgment debtor. If the appropriation is towards t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The amount was deposited by the judgment debtor in the court subject to the determination instant. The counsel for the judgment debtor has urged that upon the judgment debtor depositing the entire principal amount of Rs. 22,64,564/- before the court on 12th February, 2004, notwithstanding the judgment debtor having not deposited the remaining decretal amount which was towards interest and costs only, further interest ought to stop running and as such besides the amount mentioned in the decree only the sum of Rs. 66,578.17 more was due to the decree holder towards interest till the date of deposit. Reliance in this regard is placed on Nandi Investments and Enterprises v. L.M. Saravamangala - AIR 2004 S.C. 4765. However, the said judgment af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied heads by judgment debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention. 4. I have already noted above that the judgment debtor, in the present case, though first depositing the exact principal amount, at no stage intimated to the decree holder that the deposit was being made towards principal. I may notice that a Single Bench of this Court in Moolji v. Indian Railway Construction Company Limited, 89 (2001) DLT 766 has also held that if the amounts were allowed to be adjusted towards the principal amount first, it would not only be against the provisions of law but would also be against the public policy inasmuch as the judgment debtor would then after depositing the principal amount delay the payment of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
