It is also undisputed that this payment would be adjusted/set-off against the interest, and not from the principal amount of the award, i.e., Rs.14,49,300/-.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/inherent-jurisdiction-and-invalid-decree-a-case-summary/
On 08.11.2001, the respondent withdrew Rs.7,78,280/-, after furnishing personal undertaking in terms of the order dated 30.10.2001. 14,49,300/- till the decision of the appeal under Section 37 of the Act on 02.02.2012, or interest @ the rate of 18% is payable on the net principal amount after the set-off/adjustment of interest due on 08.11.2001 from Rs.7,78,280/- which was withdrawn by the respondent on 08.11.2001.
On 18.08.2012, the respondent had filed another application stating and claiming that he was entitled to interest on Rs.14,06,259/-, i.e., the principal amount awarded along with the 18% interest till the decision of the appeal under Section 37 of the Act, which was decided on 02.02.2012. Union 5 of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457, a five Judges Bench of this Court had examined Rule 1 to Order XXI of the CPC, post the substitution by Act No 4 of 1976, and observed that the effect of the substitution is that upon deposit of the decretal amount in the court and giving notice thereof to the decree holder, there would be cessation of interest from the date of notice to the decree holder of such deposit. Therefore, when the deposited amount is withdrawn and gets credited in the account of the decree holder, he is not entitled to interest on the deposited amount, even when there is failure on the part of the judgment debtor to issue notice of deposit.
7,78,280/- being in terms of the conditional order i.e., on furnishing of personal undertaking given by the respondent, the direction for payment of interest @ the rate of 18% on Rs.7,78,280/- would continue till the decision of the appeal under Section 37 of the Act on 02.02.2012. He can if he likes take the money out in terms of the order, but so long as he does not do it, there is nothing to prevent the judgment-debtor from taking it out by furnishing another security, say, immovable property, if the court allows him to do so and on his losing the appeal putting the decretal amount in court in terms of Order XXI Rule 1 of the CPC in satisfaction of the decree”. In the decision of this Court in Delhi Development Authority (supra), the money deposited by the Delhi Development Authority in the court was not withdrawn by the contractor Bhai Sardar Singh and Sons.
Accordingly, the decree holder, it was held, was not entitled to interest post the decision, even when the judgment debtor had not served any formal notice as required under sub-rule (4) to Rule 1 to Order XXI of the CPC. , (2011) 12 SCC 518, wherein it has been observed that where a stay is granted by way of interim order on dismissal of the writ petition or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the withheld amount or not paid by him by virtue of the interim order.
The observations hold that the person liable to make payment would have to pay the principal amount along with the interest which is specified in the contract or the statute as he had enjoyed benefit of the stay order. 7,78,280/-
being conditional, the respondent would have been under an obligation to refund the said amount in case the appellant had succeeded in the appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996.
In the context of the present case, interest would be the compensation payable by the appellant to the respondent, for the retention or deprivation of use of money.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/conviction-upheld-for-murder-and-concealment-of-body/
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that they have made over-payment and our attention is drawn to annexure (P- 12), which shows that they have paid total amount of Rs.
Case Title: NEPA LIMITED THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL) Vs. MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL (2022 INSC 1263)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003984-003984 / 2019
