Full Text
JUDGMENT
Through: Mr. Tilak Raj, parlner of DH in person
Through: Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Adv. t- coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporler or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? t-L,. MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) -F
1. The present petition has been filed by the decree' holders seeking warrants of attachment of moveable properties like A.C., coolers, computers, chairs, sofa etc. of the judgment debtor and order for their sale for realization of the total balance amount of Rs.80.000/- Ex. P. No.348/2008 Page I of I 2009:DHC:13619 'talongwith simple interest @ I2Yo p.a. fi'om the date of award i.e.
23.02. Igg[5] till the date of actual payment.
2. As per the decree holders, the said balance of Rs.80,0001 is the amount that the judgment debtor did not consider while making the payment to the decree holders in view of the amendment letter dated
04.03. L995 issued bv the learned Arbitrator.
3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that vide agreement No.35/EE/SWD-5/DDA/ACS/86-67 the decree holders were awarded the work for execution C/o 112 M.S Flats at Katwaria Sarai. S/FI C/o R.C.C
4. Thereafter, ceftain disputes arose between the parties which were referred to the Sole Arbitrator.
5. After considering all the submissions made by the parties, the learned Arbitrator vide award dated 23.02.1995 awarded an amount of Rs.5,36,650/- in favour of the decree holders and against the judgment debtor alongwith sirnple interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of award i.e. 23.02.1995 till the realization of the amount to the decree holders.
6. As per the decree holders till the filing of this petition, they Ex. P. No.348/2008 I G \ < | /l -\ \ had received part payment of Rs.8,93,2271- (Rs.5,36,650/- plus simple interest from the date of arvard till the date of actual payment).
7. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the judgment debtor it is stated that the award dated 26.02.1995 passed by the arbitrator was challenged by the DDA. This court, after hearing the case dismissed the objections of the depaftment and the award was made a rule of the court along with interest @ I2o/o from the date of decree till the realization of the amount to the decree holders.
8. Therefore, total amount of Rs. 8,93,2271- was paid to the decree holders vide cheque No.830720 datedA[9].08.2002.
9. Thereafter, the decree holders again moved to courl vide Ex. No.22 612002 demanding Rs.4,00,4791- plus 18olo interest on the said amount. In response filed by the judgment debtor/DDA it was admitted that the earlier the interest was calculated upto 30.06.2002 whereas payment was made on 09.08.2002 and therefore, after calculating the remaining interest again, which came out to be Rs.5,313l- the same was paid to the decree holders vide cheque No.359096 dated 28.06.2004.
10. It is further stated bv the JD that the decree holders vide a 71/ --t their letter dated 16.04.2007 addressed to the ChairmanlDDA. Vikas Sacian, claimed Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. 18.01.1989 till the date of actual payment.
11. Admittedly the JD have already paid full amount against the order dated 24.09.2001 and 20.0I.2004 to the decree holders and nothing more is due against the JD/DDA in this respect.
12. Further it is stated that the review application to the order dated 24.09.2001 filed by the decree holders has also been dismissed by the court vide order dated 09.02.2007. The copy of the said review petition has also been filed by the JD/DDA. Hence the amount claimed by the decree holders is not liable to be paid by the JD/DDA.
13. The present petition along with the pending EA's is disposed bf as no fuither orders are required to be passed. a ocToBER 14, 2011 -f,w R.D (rir< 'E' v' a-l ) ra, - ?-4,9.n 4*uo "q?r^_/ t oU flaFcs\qv-1 / MANMOHAN SINGH. J. [9.-- lr\ )lu o-V], R-, f"r bevirw cft or.b e lqrl.r_l) ) ( h n Lor.Lvrc.hm lf *V ) - Page4of[4] f\rlo-7;