Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (4) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... charges. 2. The amounts due under the Land Acquisition Award passed by the Court in 1985 comprised of enhanced market value, solatium at 15% and interest at 4% on the additional amount. In cross appeal filed by the appellant, the State and the company the enhancement of market value was affirmed but the appellant was further granted solatium at 30% of the entire market value, additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and interest under the amended Section 28 at 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years. The company challenged the order of the High Court by way of Special Leave Petition in this Court in which an order was passed to the following effect: Issue notice confi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fter the Order was clarified on 7th December, 1987, the respondent deposited the amount on 9th January, 1988. The appeal was dismissed on 12th September 1989. After the dismissal of appeal, the appellant put the decree in execution in October, 1989 and claimed that after deducting the amount deposited by the respondent towards amount due, they were liable to be paid the balance with interest as directed by the court. It was objected as the respondent having deposited the decretal amount it was liable to pay only the amount which was stayed by this Court, namely, the escalation by the Amending Act of 1984 and the interest thereon. Both the appellant and respondent filed statement showing calculations of the figure arrived at by them. The exe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d upon favourably where the judgment-debtor does not pay or deposit the decretal amount within the time granted as one cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own default. Therefore, the normal rule that is followed is to allow the deposit or payment if it is in part to be adjusted towards the interest due etc. In Meka Venkatadri Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar Guru and Ors. v. Raja Parthsarathy Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar Guru AIR (1922) PC 233 the rationale was explained thus: There are moneys that are received without a definite appropriation on the one side or on the other, and the rule which is well-established in ordinary cases is that in those circumstances the money is first applied in payment of interest and then when that is sati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sence of any evidence that the decree-holder was informed about the nature of deposit or the decree-holder appropriated it towards the principal, the ordinary rule applied and the payments by the judgment-debtor could be appropriated towards interest and cost as held in Meka Venkatadri case (supra). It may now be seen if the principle laid down in this decision stands diluted by amendment of Rule 1. The relevant portion of the amended Rule reads as under: O.XXI.R.l.- Modes of paying money under decree.- (1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely: (a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b) out of Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ect the judgment-debtor provide for measure of interest from the date of deposit or payment. But the cessation of interest under Sub-rule (4) takes place not by payment alone but from the date of service of the notice referred to in Sub-rule (2). It is not necessary for purposes of this case to decide whether the creditor was bound to appropriate the amount towards principal once it was deposited in court and intimation of the deposit was served on the decree-holder as it does not appear that the respondent ever served any notice on the appellant about the deposit. It is true that the amount was deposited in January, 1988. But in absence of any intimation as required by Sub-rule (2) and indication of manner of appropriation, the payment cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates