9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for interest on the decree amount without specific direction in the decree. Analysis: The respondent, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, filed a suit claiming entitlement to promotion from Police Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police from a specific date. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Addl. District Judge reversed this decision, granting the promotion and associated benefits to the respondent. The decree became final as no appeal was filed against it. The respondent then sought execution of the decree for arrears of salary, pension, and other amounts, also claiming compound interest at 12% per annum. The State objected to the interest claim, arguing that the decree did not include any direction for interest. The Execution Court, however, allowed the interest claim, leading to subsequent appeals and revisions by the State, all of which were dismissed. The Supreme Court noted that the original decree did not contain any provision for interest, and the respondent had not claimed interest during the suit proceedings. The Court emphasized that the executing court is bound by the terms of the decree and cannot modify it based on its own views of fairness. While acknowledging the power of courts to award interest in certain circumstances, the Court clarified that such power cannot be exercised by the Execution Court without a specific direction in the decree. The Court highlighted that previous cases where interest was awarded involved explicit directions from the court, unlike the present case. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Execution Court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding interest to the respondent without a specific provision in the decree. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order granting interest to the respondent and ruled that there would be no order as to costs.
|
