ORDER

EX.APPL.(OS) 2933/2022 in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 145/2021

1. The present execution petition relates to an award dated 11 May 2017. The challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [The Act] which was mounted by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [DMRC] came to be dismissed on 06 March 2018. DMRC is thereafter stated to have preferred an intra-court appeal which came to be partly allowed by the Division Bench in terms of its judgement dated 15 January 2019.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the execution petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was allowed in terms of the judgement rendered on 09 September 2021. The said decision stands reported as Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 131: The review petition preferred by DMRC seeking review of the aforesaid order also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23 November 2021. The execution petition as well as the objections which had come to be preferred came up for substantive consideration before the Court thereafter.

3. For the purposes of the present order, it would be pertinent to principally advert to the orders of 10 March 2022 and 20 June 2022 passed by this Court on the present petition. In terms of the order dated 10 March 2022, the Court by way of an elaborate order proceeded to rule on the question of interest as well as the liability of the DMRC to make payments in terms of the final Award that was rendered. The Court also decided the various objections which were raised by the DMRC with respect to computation of interest and the ambit of Section 89 of the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 [The 2002 Act.]. It would be apposite to extract the following parts of that decision:

"31. During pendency of these proceedings, the judgment debtor had also made payment of Rs.678 crores and Rs.1000 crores i.e. Rs.1678.42 crores. Even on the day orders in the present petition were reserved, learned senior counsel for judgment debtor had undertaken that the amount of Rs.600 crores shall be deposited in the ESCROW account. The judgment debtor has raised the contention that the payments made by the judgment debtor should have been adjusted from the due amount on the date of payment can not be accepted. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 45: has held that the payments made by the judgment debtor to decree holder has to be appropriated first towards the interest and costs and then towards the principal amount. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. R.S. Avtar Singh, (2013) 1 SCC 243. 152 has held that if the payment made by the judgment-debtor falls short of the decreetal amount, the decree-holder will be entitled to apply the general rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount deposited towards the interest, then towards costs and finally towards the principal amount due under the decree and observed as under:

"31. From what has been stated in the said decision, the following principles emerge:

31.1. The general rule of appropriation towards a decretal amount was that such an amount was to be adjusted strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the decree and in the absence of such directions adjustments be made firstly towards payment of interest and costs and thereafter towards payment of the principal amount subject, of course, to any agreement between the parties. 31.2. The legislative intent in enacting sub-rules (4) and (5) is a clear pointer that interest should cease to run on the deposit made by the judgment-debtor and notice given or on the amount being tendered outside the court in the manner provided in Order 21 Rule 1(1)(b).

31.3. If the payment made by the judgment-debtor falls short of the decreed amount, the decree-holder will be entitled to apply the general rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount deposited to