The deposit of amounts by the judgment debtor did not amount to payment in terms of the law, and the judgment debtor's conduct did not absolve it from liability to pay interest from the date of the deposit.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The decree holder seeks execution of a decree arising out of an award, which was made rule of this Court, on 20.9.1993.

2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that on 31.5.1986 a mutually agreed arbitrator directed that the sum of Rs. 11,24,085.56 along with interest at 15% per annum (from the date of the decree to be made by Court), should be paid by the respondent. The decree holder approached this Court under Section 14 of the old Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereafter referred to as "Act"). On 20.9.1993, the Court overruled the objections of the respondent/judgment debtor and confirmed the award, thus making it the rule of the Court, in Suit No. 1283-A/1986. The decree holder thereafter moved this Court for realization of its dues, through the present execution proceedings. The Court took cognizance and issued warrants of attachment of the judgment debtors bank accounts. It was at that stage that the judgment debtor represented on its behalf that an appeal, against the judgment of the Court, dated 20.9.1993, had been filed before the Division Bench.

.3. In the meanwhile, on 5.4.1994, during pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench, the judgment debtor deposited the sum of Rs. 11,24,085.56 before this Court. The Court noticed this in its order dated 26.4.1995, in EA Nos. 3/95 and 50/95. That order recorded the grievance of the decree holder that only the award amount and not the interest accruing on it (which formed part of the decree) was deposited. The Court felt that since the award amount deposited by the judgment debtor, and had not been released in favour of the decree holder, releasing interest amounts through execution of the decree should not be permitted till the Division Bench gave clarification with regard to such amounts. The Division Bench issued an order on 24.3.1994 staying the release of the amount deposited under certain conditions. The Division Bench held:

.In case the appellant deposits the decree holder amount with the Registrar of this Court by 5.4.1994, the order by the Executing Court attaching the bank guarantee shall not be given effect to.

4. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on 30.7.2001; it also imposed costs to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and further directed that the amounts deposited by the judgment debtor/appellant should be released to the present decree holder, forthwith. The judgment debtor carried the order of the Division Bench in appeal by Special Leave, under Article 136 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, which rejected it, on 4.10.2007.

.5. It is claimed by the decree holder as on 5.3.2008, the balance amount of Rs. 5,09,216.09 was payable by the judgment debtor after adjusting the award amount (i.e. Rs. 11,24,085.56) and the interest accruing thereon. The decree holder had been paid a sum of Rs. 21,89,990/- on 20.9.2001. It is further claimed that as on 20.9.2001 the balance decretal amount, which included 15% per annum directed under the award, had mounted to Rs. 32,07,974.51 and that this further increased to Rs. 43,44,132.14 as on 29.1.2003; that day the judgment debtor had paid the sum of Rs. 33,06,680/- thus leaving a balance of Rs. 10,37,452.14.

6. This Court had on 10.12.2004 directed issuance of warrant of attachment for rest of the amounts of Rs. 13,31,454.65. It is claimed that after due adjustment of the said amount, the balance decretal amount, on a proper application of the law would stand at Rs. 5,09,2106.09.

7. It is contended on behalf of the decree holder by its Counsel Ms. Anusuya Salwan that on the application of well settled principles, interest up to the date of the decree formed part of the decree and could not be distinguished from the principal, or award amount. Thus, the judgment debtor could not claim to be relieved of its liability to pay the entire decretal amount, to satisfy the decree holders rights under the decree. She relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Oil & Natural Gas Com