9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. 2. Execution was sought of an arbitral award having the force of a decree under Section 35 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996. The award directed the respondent/judgment debtor to pay the awarded amount within 90 days of the publication of the award, failing which interest at 18% was payable by the judgment debtor to the decree holder till the payment of the arbitration award. The record reveals that the judgment debtor preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act with respect to the said award. The same was registered as OMP No.327/2002 and was dismissed on 9th March, 2008. The appeal preferred by the judgment debtor against the order of dismissal of its application under Section 34 of the Act was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the decision of the SLP stated to have been preferred by it. 5. E.A. No.530/2008 came up before this court first on 17th November, 2008. It was informed that the attachment had already been affected. In fact the cheque was received in the registry of this court on 18th November, 2008. The counsel for the judgment debtor thus on 17th November, 2008 only made a request for staying the release of the money to the decree holder. However, it was noted in the order dated 17th November, 2008 that till then there was no order for release of the money to the decree holder. 6. The decree holder thereafter filed E.A.No.548/2008 stating that the attachment in fact had been affected on 14th November, 2008; and seeking release of the sum of Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 when the monies were received in the registry of this court and in fact was claiming interest till 15th January, 2009 when the sum of Rs.28,50,000/- was actually released in favour of the decree holder. If the interest is to be calculated till 4th September, 2008 then the amount due is Rs.29,04,401/-. If the interest is calculated till 18th November, 2008, then the amount due under the award is Rs.29,52,418/- and if the interest is calculated up to 15th January, 2009 then the amount due under the award is Rs.29,89,847/-. 9. There is no basis whatsoever for the judgment debtor to calculate the interest till 4th September, 2009 only. Though in the execution application the decree holder disclosed the amount due as on 4th September, 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lienation/encumbrance and to make the attached goods/money available for execution. 13. Help in this regard can be derived from Order 21 Rule 1 providing mode of paying money under the decree. It provides for the judgment debtor to deposit the monies in the court and to give notice to the decree holder either directly or by Registered Post AD through court of such deposit. Sub-rule 4 provides that on amounts so deposited the interest shall cease to run from the date of service of such notice on the decree holder. The purport of law appears to be that the interest will cease to run on the day when the decree holder has knowledge that money is deposited in the court and there is no impediment to his withdrawing the same. The decree holder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be entitled to interest till 6th January, 2009, in as much as on that date the decree holder had notice that the monies attached were releasable to it. The amount due till 6th January, 2009 as reported by the Registrar General of this court and which has not been disputed by any of the parties is Rs.29,52,418/-. 17. The decree holder is not entitled to interest till 15th January, 2009 on which date the monies were actually released to the decree holder, in as much as the order of release was made on 6th January, 2009 itself. The delay, if any, in release of the money thereafter is not attributable to the judgment debtor and the judgment debtor cannot be made liable for interest for such delay. 18. I may before concluding notice M.B. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while depositing the money in the court, the interest does not cease to run. He has also relied upon the judgment of this court in Kali Charan Sharma Vs. NOIDA MANU/DE/1367/2008 holding that interest does not cease to run where monies are deposited as security for stay of execution. 21. The conclusion reached by me is inconsonance with the principle leading to the aforesaid two judgments. 22. Accordingly, it is directed that out of the monies received in this court pursuant to attachment, a further sum of Rs.1,02,418/- be released to the decree holder within ten days of today and the balance amount, if any, be refunded to the judgment debtor; with these directions the execution petition is disposed of as satisfied. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
