$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:12^th December 2024 Pronounced on: 22nd April, 2025 + CM(M) 1113/2023 & CM APPL. 35964/2023 (stay)

MS PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Minakshi Jyoti , Advocate.

versus MS KEDAR NATH GUPTA AND SONS HUF ....Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Mr. Shivaji Tiwari, Advocates CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The limited question to be answered in this petition is whether the amount deposited by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor [“JD”] in a preliminary decree is to be adjusted towards interest or towards principal decretal amount.

CM (M) 1113/2023 Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

2. Brief facts are that preliminary decree dated 28.09.2018 was passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-01, Patiala House Court, New Delhi to the extent of refunding the principal amount of Rs. 34,07,325.20/- (Rs. 29,56,670/- + Rs. 4,50,655.20/-) in CS 56823/2018, titled “Kedar Nath Gupta & Sons (HUF) Vs. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.”. Petitioner herein is the JD. The relevant paras of the decree read as under:-

“11. I have thought over the said aspect - in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion since there is an offer/admission which has come on the part of the defendant to refund the principle amount in my opinion it would be apt at this juncture to order payment of Rs. 34,07,325.201- [Rs.29,56,670 + Rs. 4,50,655.20], Rs.4,50,655.20/- is the amount which is otherwise also admitted by the defendant upon which defendant has paid the TDS - the same signifies that this amount becomes a part of the principle.

12.2 Apart whereof I am also of the view that the question of interest as a whole should be disposed of at the final stage - not otherwise by acceding to the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of 10% leaving the remaining open for litigation. The yardstick which I have adopted with regard to return of principle amount is more proper leaving the question of adjudication as to the interest open.

..................

14. I may clarify that the present decree I disposal of application is only to the extent to refund of Rs. 34,07,325201-[Rs.29,56,670 + Rs.4,50,655.20 for which TDS was filed]. The amount be deposited within 4weeks from . today by the defendant failing which coercive action shall be taken. I am not passing any orders as to the aspect of interest. That aspect is kept open.

15. The adjustment of Rs. 34,07,325.201- shall be as per law and the final adjustment would be at the time of final disposal of the suit ………"

3. In compliance of the preliminary decree, petitioner/JD made payments on different dates, as per following details:-

CM (M) 1113/2023 Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

4. Since no orders were passed as to the aspect of interest, respondent/Decree Holder [“DH”], preferred CM (M) No. 1492/2018 before the High Court. This Court vide order dated 30.11.2021, directed the payment of interest @ 9% on Rs. 29,56,670/-. Directions in Para No. 14 & 15 read thus:-

“14. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is modified to the extent that the petitioner, in addition to the sum of Rs. 34,07,325/- would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 29,56,670/-, the amount deposited by the petitioner.

15. The question whether the interest is payable on the amount of Rs. 4,50,655/-, would be determined by the trial court during the trial of the suit along with the rate of interest, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court. Since the only question to be adjudicated by the trial Court is in respect of interest payable, trial court shall endeavour to expeditiously decide the suit.”

5