1. Appeal against High Court order requiring pre-deposit of entire decretal amount and interest as a condition for hearing a pending appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 833
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
State of West Bengal and Others – Appellants
Versus
Adonis Engineers Co-Operative Construction Society Limited – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5293 of 2022, SLP (Civil) No. 2366 of 2020
Decided On : 16-08-2022
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to determine the sufficiency of a deposit in compliance with its directions, and the authority to substitute original directions based on the circumstances of the case.
Subject
Civil Law - Appeal
Headnote
Leave granted - Appeal challenging judgment and final order of High Court of Calcutta - Deposit of decretal amount and interest - Limited question of compliance with deposit - Deposit of Rs. 45,00,000/- deemed sufficient - Pending appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits - High Court requested to dispose of pending appeal within three months - Only issue of pre-deposit addressed - All other issues left open for High Court to decide
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenges the judgment and final order of the High Court of Calcutta, which directed the appellants to deposit the entire decretal amount with interest within three weeks. The appellants had already deposited a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- as directed by the court. The limited question was whether this deposit was sufficient compliance with the court's direction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deposit of Rs. 45,00,000/- was sufficient to meet the ends of justice, and therefore substituted the direction to deposit the entire decretal sum with the direction to deposit Rs. 45,00,000/-. The pending appeal was to be taken up for hearing on merits by the High Court, and the High Court was requested to dispose of the pending appeal within three months. The court clarified that it had only addressed the issue of pre-deposit, leaving all other issues open for the High Court to decide.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deposit of Rs. 45,00,000/- was sufficient compliance with the court's direction to deposit the entire decretal amount with interest. The court also clarified that all other issues were left open for the High Court to decide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the deposit of Rs. 45,00,000/- was sufficient to meet the ends of justice, and therefore substituted the original direction. The court also emphasized that it had only addressed the issue of pre-deposit, leaving all other issues open for the High Court to decide.
Final Decision: The Civil Appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the ppellant(s) : Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv. Mr. Naved Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv. M/s. PLR Chambers & Co., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, AOR
For the ppellant(s) : Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv. Mr. Naved Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv. M/s. PLR Chambers & Co., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether the requirement to deposit the entire decretal sum and interest should be maintained or if a partial deposit suffices as compliance. (Para 5 )
3. The court found that a partial deposit would meet the ends of justice, allowing the pending appeal to be heard on merits. (Para 7 )
4. A partial deposit may be deemed sufficient compliance with a pre-deposit requirement if it meets the ends of justice. (Para 7 )
5. Direction to deposit the entire decretal sum substituted with a partial deposit requirement; High Court directed to dispose of the pending appeal. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
6. Can a court substitute a requirement to deposit the entire decretal amount with a partial deposit?
Yes, if the court determines that a partial deposit meets the ends of justice, it may substitute the requirement to deposit the entire decretal sum and interest. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in CAN No. 518 of 2018 in FAT No. 500 of 2017.
3. The Order under appeal directed the present appellants to deposit the entire decretal amount together with interest awarded therein with the Registrar General of the High Court within three weeks and subject to such deposit, notice was directed to be issued in the pending appeal.
4. By interim order dated 17.01.2020, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only) with the Registrar General of the High Court within three weeks from the date of Order. Accordingly, said sum has been deposited with the Registry of the High Court.
5. In the present appeal, we are concerned with the limited question whether the direction to deposit the entire decretal sum along with interest accrued thereon ought to be maintained or whether the deposit of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Lakhs Only), as directed by this Court, can be taken to be sufficient compliance of the direction issued by the High Court.
6. We have heard Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, learned Advocate in support of the appeal and Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, learned Advocate for the respondent.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case on record, in our view, deposit of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Lakhs Only) would meet the ends of justice. The direction to deposit the entire decretal sum along with interest is, therefore, substituted by direction to deposit Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Lakhs Only). Since that part has already been complied with, in our view, the pending appeal can now be taken up for hearing on merits by the High Court.
8. We, therefore, request the High Court to take up pending appeal being FAT No. 500 of 2017 for disposal at an early date and preferably within three months from today.
9. It is made clear that we have dealt with only one issue, namely, the requirement of pre-deposit. All other issues are left open to be agitated before the High Court.
10. The Civil Appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs.
