SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 353

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.
Hindi Pracharak Prakashan and another, Petitioners
Versus
M / s. G.K. Brothers and others, Respondents
Special Leave Petn. (C) No. 4759 of 1989, D/- 16-7-1990.

Auction-purchaser entitled to reasonable compensation and interest on amount deposited in Court.

Headnote:

Decree-holder - Auction Amount - Court directs interest on amount deposited and reasonable compensation to auction-purchaser

Fact of the Case:

The decree has been satisfied by deposit of the decretal dues in the Court's Registry. The auction amount has been in deposit in Court without being invested for 10 years.

Finding of the Court:

The Court directs the judgment-debtor to deposit interest at 12% per annum on the amount and orders the original amount in deposit, together with the interest, to be returned to the auction-purchaser.

Issues: Failure to invest auction amount, entitlement of auction-purchaser to interest and compensation, and direction for payment by judgment-debtor.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the auction-purchaser is entitled to reasonable compensation and directed the judgment-debtor to deposit interest at 12% per annum on the amount deposited in Court.

Final Decision: The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly, and the judgment-debtor is directed to deposit the interest due at 12% in the Executing Court, failing which interest at 18% will be applicable.

Judgment

Counsel for the decree-holder tells us that the decree has been satisfied by deposit of the decretal dues in the Registry of this Court. Liberty is given to the decree-holder to withdraw the same for satisfying the decree.

2. The property was sold by auction as early as 1980 and for well for 10 years the auction amount has been in deposit in Court without being invested. It was the duty of the decree-holder as also the auction-purchaser to ensure that the money was put into interest earning deposit. The Court should also have taken care to give appropriate direction. No income in the circumstances has been earned on the amount said to be about rupees one lakh and five thousand.

3. Now that the decree has been satisfied and the sale which has not yet been confirmed is being set aside, the auction-purchaser is entitled to the amount deposited in Court as also to reasonable compensation. We are of the view that reasonable compensation in this case should be 12 per cent per annum of interest on the amount. We accordingly direct that within three months from now the judgment-debtor shall deposit the interest due at 12 per cent in the Executing Court and on that amount being deposited the original amount in deposit together with the interest to be deposited shall be returned to the auction-purchaser. In the event of the amount not being paid as now directed, interest shall be calculated at 18 per cent instead of 12 per cent as ordered above and the amount can be recovered through execution against the very property.

4. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.

For Citation : AIR 1990 SC 2221

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top