1. In this order I am considering CA316 of 2009 filed by the respondents seeking for various reliefs. The background for filing this application is that the petitioner and respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 had entered into consent terms on 4.7.2007 by which the respondents were to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.120 lacs on receipt of which the petitioner was to surrender his 10% shares to the respondents. While a sum of Rs.15 lacs out of the said amount was to be paid by a pay order on 4.7.2007, for the balance a cheque dated 30.9.2008 was to be handed over to the petitioner on the same day with an undertaking by the respondents that the said cheque shall be honoured on first presentation. In the consent terms, it was also provided that in case the above cheque was not honoured on first presentation, the respondents shall be liable to pay to the petitioner interest @ 15% per annum on R.s.105 lacs from 4.7.2007 till the date of payment. When the consent terms were presented before this Board on 19.7.2007, an order was passed in the following terms: "The petition is disposed of in terms of consent terms dated 4.7.07. This is in modification of the order dated 7.3.2006. The consent terms dated 4.7.07 taken on record shall operate as a decree''.

2. Whatever may be the reasons, the cheque for Rs.105 lacs was not honoured on first presentation. However, a demand draft for the said amount was handed over by the respondents to the advocates of the petitioner and the same was encashed on 8.11.2008. The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.21,40,274 as interest @ 15% for the delayed payment from 4.7.2007 to 8.11.2008. However, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs. 1,68,285 as interest @ 15% per annum from 30.9.2008 to 8.11.2008. In background of these facts, the present application has been filed by the respondents seeking for marking the decree as fully satisfied and also for restraining the petitioner from proceeding further with any execution application.

3. Shri Dave, advocate, appearing for the respondents submitted: On 28^th September, the 2^nd respondent met the petitioner and informed him that certain funds to be transferred to the company's accounts might not be transferred due to bank holidays on 29^th & 30^th September and 2^nd October, 2008 and accordingly Requested the petitioner to hold the cheque for deposit at least for a day as normal clearance takes place after two working days. Since the petitioner required Rs.65, lacs urgently and since the said amount was available in the company's account, the 2" respondent advised the petitioner to receive Rs.65 lacs immediately on 1.10.2008. On the same day the bank informed the 2^nd respondent that clearing of funds due to the company would be done on the next working day and immediately the 2^nd respondent informed the petitioner of the same. However, the petitioner informed the 2^nd respondent that the cheque had already been deposited on 1^st October, 2008 itself and in case the cheque was returned, he would deposit it again thereafter. Since the petitioner had not re-deposited the cheque as agreed, the 2^nd respondent obtained a demand draft for Rs. 105 lacs in favour of the petitioner on 7.10.2008 and deposited the same with the escrow agent. The same was informed to the petitioner also by an e-mail on 8.10.2008. In response to the said intimation, the petitioner sent an e-mail on 8.10.2008, stating that he was ready to accept the draft but without any payment whatsoever to the escrow agent or any other agency. Again on 10 October, 2009, he sent another e-mail stating that it was not his responsibility to pick up the draft from anywhere and it had to be delivered to him and that since the cheque was not cleared on first presentation, he reserved his right as per the consent terms. By a communication dated 25.10.2008, the advocate for the petitioner sent a communication to the 2 respondent stating that the cheque deposited by the petitioner on 1.10.2008 was returned by the bank on 6