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

MEHTA, A.H.KHAN
Vinayak Yeshwant Lad – Appellant
Versus
Shrildshan Chandmal Firm – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.G. Bhalerao
For the Respondent: S.M. Jhavar

JUDGEMENT :

A.H. KHAN, J.

This first appeal arises out of execution proceedings and is filed by the judgment-debtor against an order of District Judge, Indore, in civil execution case No. 30/1950, passed on 16-2-1951.

2. The short facts of the case are that out of a sum of Rs.20,000/-, the judgment-debtpr deposited Rs.12000/- in the court, but he failed to give notice to the decree-holder according to O.21 R.1(2), Civil P.C. It is admitted that interest was awarded by the decree on the decretal amount. The question for determination, in the circumstances is whether interest on the amount of Rs.12000/- ceases from the date of its deposit in court or not?

3. The court of first instance has held that it does not, and, that the decree-holder is entitled to interest until he receives notice of payment into court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that decretal amount paid into the court is tantamount to payment to the decree-holder and as such interest must cease from the date of its deposit in the court. He has cited - 'Laxmi Narayan Ganeshdas v. Ghasiram Dalchand', AIR 1939 Nag 191 (A), in support of his contention.

5. There is no doubt that in AIR 1939 Nag 191 (A), a view has









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