Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
EFA(OS) 8/2013
M/S OSWAL GREENTECH LTD. & ANR. Appellant
Through: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vivek
Ojha, Advocate.
EFA(OS) 8/2013
M/S OSWAL GREENTECH LTD. & ANR. Appellant
Through: Mr.Rakesh Tiku, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vivek
Ojha, Advocate.
VERSUS
LALIT KUMAR BAGLA Respondent
Through: Mr.T.S.Ahuja, Advocate.
Through: Mr.T.S.Ahuja, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA .
22.04.2013 Caveat No.355/2013 Since learned counsel for the caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.
CM No.6205/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
EFA (OS) No.8/2013 CM No.6203/2013 (Stay)
CM No.6204/2013 (For Condonation ofDelay of45 days in filing the appeal)
The appellant has filed the application seeking condonation ofdelay of
45 days in filing the appeal. The reason stated is that the counsel for the appellants on 14.01.2013 had misunderstood the order passed by the Court and as such there was delay in filing of the appeal. No affidavit of the counsel, who was present on 14.01.2013 and who is alleged to have misunderstood the order, has been filed in support ofthe application.
EFA (OS) No.8/2013 Page 1 of3 2013:DHC:7977-DB
Though we are not satisfied with the reason stated in the application for condonation ofdelay, still we have examined the appeal on merits.
The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated
14.01.2013 whereby the learned single Judge of this Court has held that the interest till the date ofpayment under a decree ceases to run only 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 and that conditional release ofmonies deposited by thejudgment debtor, subject to the outcome of appeal etc. and on conditionof the decree holder furnishing security therefor is not payment under the decree and interests does not cease to mn on such release of monies.
Leamed senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the amount was deposited in the Court by the appellants, the same should have been appropriated towards the decree and since the amount was released to the decree holder, the interest on the amount that was deposited and subsequently released to the decree holder should cease from the date of deposit.
We find no merit in the submission ofthe leamed senior counsel for the appellant for the reason that when an amount is deposited in Court pursuant to a direction of the Court for the purposes of staying the execution of the decree, the same would not amount to a deposit either towards or in
EFA(OS)No.8/2013 Page 2 of3 satisfaction of the decree even though the amount is released to the decree holder on furnishing security.
The amount which is released to the decree holder in such as case is released on the condition that if the
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA .
22.04.2013 Caveat No.355/2013 Since learned counsel for the caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.
CM No.6205/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
EFA (OS) No.8/2013 CM No.6203/2013 (Stay)
CM No.6204/2013 (For Condonation ofDelay of45 days in filing the appeal)
The appellant has filed the application seeking condonation ofdelay of
45 days in filing the appeal. The reason stated is that the counsel for the appellants on 14.01.2013 had misunderstood the order passed by the Court and as such there was delay in filing of the appeal. No affidavit of the counsel, who was present on 14.01.2013 and who is alleged to have misunderstood the order, has been filed in support ofthe application.
EFA (OS) No.8/2013 Page 1 of3 2013:DHC:7977-DB
Though we are not satisfied with the reason stated in the application for condonation ofdelay, still we have examined the appeal on merits.
The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated
14.01.2013 whereby the learned single Judge of this Court has held that the interest till the date ofpayment under a decree ceases to run only 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 and that conditional release ofmonies deposited by thejudgment debtor, subject to the outcome of appeal etc. and on conditionof the decree holder furnishing security therefor is not payment under the decree and interests does not cease to mn on such release of monies.
Leamed senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the amount was deposited in the Court by the appellants, the same should have been appropriated towards the decree and since the amount was released to the decree holder, the interest on the amount that was deposited and subsequently released to the decree holder should cease from the date of deposit.
We find no merit in the submission ofthe leamed senior counsel for the appellant for the reason that when an amount is deposited in Court pursuant to a direction of the Court for the purposes of staying the execution of the decree, the same would not amount to a deposit either towards or in
EFA(OS)No.8/2013 Page 2 of3 satisfaction of the decree even though the amount is released to the decree holder on furnishing security.
The amount which is released to the decree holder in such as case is released on the condition that if the
ORDER
debtor succeeds in the appeal, the decree holder would have to refund the same. The decree holder thus cannot appropriate the amountunconditionally for his use and there is always a cloud over the amount which is released to the decree holder and the decree holder may at a later point of time, if the judgment debtor is successful in appeal, be asked to refund the amount.
The interest which is payable on the amount ofthe decree will continue to run till the time the amount is released unconditionally to the decree holder so that the decree holder can appropriate the said amount without there being any cloud on the title to the said amount.
The law on this aspect is no longer res integra and the learned single
Judge has thus righty concluded that such a deposit is not a payment under the decree and the interest does not cease to run on such release ofmonies.
We see no reason to take a contrary view to the view taken by the learned single Judge. We find no infirmity in the impugned order dated
14.01.2013 ofthe learned single Judge even on merits.
The appeal and the applications are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. _
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J JEEV SACHDEVA, J APRIL 22,2013/dm
EFA (OS) No.8/2013
The interest which is payable on the amount ofthe decree will continue to run till the time the amount is released unconditionally to the decree holder so that the decree holder can appropriate the said amount without there being any cloud on the title to the said amount.
The law on this aspect is no longer res integra and the learned single
Judge has thus righty concluded that such a deposit is not a payment under the decree and the interest does not cease to run on such release ofmonies.
We see no reason to take a contrary view to the view taken by the learned single Judge. We find no infirmity in the impugned order dated
14.01.2013 ofthe learned single Judge even on merits.
The appeal and the applications are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. _
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J JEEV SACHDEVA, J APRIL 22,2013/dm
EFA (OS) No.8/2013