9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said issue depends upon whether the deposits made by the judgment debtor in the court after filing of the execution petition are to be appropriated first towards interest as contended by the decree holder or first towards the principal amount as contended by the judgment debtor. If the appropriation is towards the interest first, then the decree holder is entitled to the release of the entire sum of Rs. 1,84,904.52. However, if the appropriation is towards the principal first then the decree holder is entitled to the release of Rs. 66,578.17 only. 2. An ex parte decree dated 22nd August, 2003 was passed in favour of the decree holder for recovery of Rs. 22,64,564/- together with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stop running and as such besides the amount mentioned in the decree only the sum of Rs. 66,578.17 more was due to the decree holder towards interest till the date of deposit. Reliance in this regard is placed on Nandi Investments and Enterprises v. L.M. Saravamangala - AIR 2004 S.C. 4765. However, the said judgment after recording the submissions of the parties remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication and is of no help to the judgment debtor. The counsel for the decree holder has on the other hand placed reliance on Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 457, Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., (1995) 4 S.C.C. 26 and Meghraj & Ors v. Mst. Bayabai & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 161. 3. At first blus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny Limited, 89 (2001) DLT 766 has also held that if the amounts were allowed to be adjusted towards the principal amount first, it would not only be against the provisions of law but would also be against the public policy inasmuch as the judgment debtor would then after depositing the principal amount delay the payment of the amount decreed towards interest and on which the decree holder would not be entitled to future interest. The same view has also been taken in Tosh and Sons India Limited v. N.N. Khanna, 131 (2006) DLT 599 and Bengal Silk Trading Company v. D.S. Bhalla, 65 (1997) DLT 219. 5. Thus, the amount of Rs. 22,64,564/- deposited by the judgment debtor on 12th February, 2004 would not cease the running of interest. The sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
