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

2024 Supreme(Bom) 1153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR, J.
Sharadchandra Ramkrishna Deshmukh - Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Builders - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10926 of 2014
Decided On : 06-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vijay D. Patil, Yogesh Patil
For the Respondents: Amey Deshpande, Ajit V. Mandlik

The calculation of interest on a decretal amount must adhere strictly to the decree's terms, with no curtailment to earlier dates unless explicitly stated.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI - Execution of decrees - Calculation of interest on the decretal amount must follow the express terms of the decree; interest awarded 'till realization' cannot be curtailed to an earlier date - The Executing Court erred in deducting Rs. 17,00,000/- payable by decree-holder before calculating interest - Adjustment according to Order XXI Rule 19 should occur after interest determination - Importance of adhering to decree language is emphasized. (Paras 5, 12, 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Executing Court's order that limited interest calculation on a decree only up to the date of counter-claim, while also deducting amounts owed to the judgment-debtor from the decree-holder's claim.

Findings of Court:
The Executing Court's order was found improper; it failed to calculate interest according to the decree’s terms until realization. The court was instructed to recalculate amounts accordingly.

Issues: Whether interest calculation is restricted to the counter-claim date, and the order of adjusting reciprocal claims as per the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The decree-holder is entitled to interest as specified until realization, and any adjustment against reciprocal claims does not precede interest calculation unless explicitly indicated in the decree. The Executing Court does not possess the jurisdiction to modify decree terms during execution. (Paras 14, 15)

Result: The impugned order is quashed and set aside, with directives to recalculate in compliance with articulated standards.

Table of Content
1. challenge to executing court's order (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding interest calculation (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court's analysis of execution law (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. recalculation of amounts ordered (Para 16 , 17)
5. timeframe for execution petition resolution (Para 18)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, being the decree-holder, challenges the judgment and order dated 24th September 2014 passed by the Executing Court. The Executing Court, while adjudicating the amount payable by the judgment-debtor, calculated interest awarded under the decree only up to the date of the counter- claim, i.e., 10th January 2001, and deducted the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- payable by the decree-holder to the judgment-debtor from the principal amount.

2. The facts and circumstances relevant for adjudication of the issue involved are as under:

The Petitioner, as a decree-holder, initiated Special Civil Suit No. 419 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, seeking declaratory relief and permanent injunction. The suit arose from a development agreement between the parties, where disputes emerged over payments, construction work, and mutual obligations. After a detailed examination of the pleadings, evidence, and arguments, the Trial Court delivered its judgment on 31st March 2005, partly decreeing the suit. The operative part of the decree was as follows :

“1. The suit is hereby partly decreed as under:

2. Defendants shall pay an amount of Rs.44,0,750/- (Rs. Forty four lakh seven Hundred Fifty only) to the plaintiff along with interest at ther ate of Rs.18% per annum only on the principle amount Rs.38,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Eight Lax only) from 12.2.2000 to till its realisation towards the consideration amount of development agreement.

3. Defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lac only) to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of Rs.18% per annum from the date of suit i.e. 17th April 2000 to till its realisation towards the amount for completing remaining construction work.

4. Defendant shall pay amount of Rs.5,84,000/- (Rs. Five Lac Eighty Four Thousand only) to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of Rs.18% per annum from the date of the suit to till its realisation.

5. Charge of the decree is created on the North West and North East wing of the suit property and an property bearing CTS NO.557, Sadashiv Peth, Pune described in Schedule of Exh. 5 Rest claim of the plaintiff stands rejected.

6. Plaintiff shall pay an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rs. Seventeen Lac only) to the defendants. Plaintiff and defendants can adjust this amount against the amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

7. Rest claim of the defendants stands rejected

8. Defendant shall pay the suit and bear his own.

9. Decree be drawn up accordingly.”

3. During the execution proceedings, the judgment-debtor filed an application quantifying the net amount payable as Rs. 1,41,04,970, asserting that Rs. 17,00,000/- payable by the decree- holder to the judgment-debtor must be deducted from the principal amount before calculating interest and that the interest on the decretal amount should be calculated only up to the date of the counter-claim, i.e., 10th January 2001.

4. The decree-holder contested this calculation, arguing that the deductions and limitations proposed by the judgment-debtor are contrary to the express terms of the decree. It was submitted that the decree mandates interest at 18% per annum "till realization" and does not restrict its computation to any earlier date. Furthermore, the decree’s language does not direct that the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- be deducted from the principal before calculating interest. Instead, it provides for adjustment after the determination of the total amounts payable by both parties.

5. The Executing Court, by its impugned order, upheld the judgment-debtor's contention. It r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top