1. Decree Holder sought revival of disposed execution petition and release of deposited decretal amount with interest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J
UPM KYMMENE CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD – Respondent
EX.P.-82/2012
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ramesh Singh, Bharti Badesra, Shivleen Pasricha
For the Respondents: Sanjeev Puri, Danish Zubair Khan, Pragya Puri, Swati Yadav
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ramesh Singh, Bharti Badesra, Shivleen Pasricha
For the Respondents: Sanjeev Puri, Danish Zubair Khan, Pragya Puri, Swati Yadav
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot revive disposed-of execution proceedings. A court deposit of the decretal amount constitutes a valid tender and discharges the judgment debtor's liability to that extent; non-withdrawal by the decree holder is a deemed refusal and does not entitle them to further interest.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Order XXI Rule 1 - Inherent powers of the Court - Scope and limitations - Power to revive a disposed-of execution petition - Inherent jurisdiction to be exercised with circumspection and only in aid of justice, not to unsettle matters that have attained finality or to confer a fresh cause of action where none exists - Cannot be used as a substitute for substantive appellate or review jurisdiction or to circumvent settled procedural frameworks. (Paras 31-33, 57)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 1 - Deposit of decretal amount - Effect of payment into Court - Once a judgment debtor deposits the decretal amount in compliance with a judicial order, the obligation to that extent stands discharged - Deposit constitutes a valid tender in law - Any abstention by the decree holder in withdrawing the amount, despite knowledge and access, is construed as a deemed refusal, disentitling the decree holder from claiming further benefits or interest on such amount. (Paras 39-42, 45)
(C) Conversion of Foreign Currency - Relevant date for conversion - Amounts deposited during the pendency of proceedings are liable to be converted at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of deposit - The principle of conversion at the stage of finality applies only to the remaining unpaid portion of the award and not to amounts already deposited and made available. (Paras 48-51)
(D) Court's Status after Disposal - Once a matter is finally disposed of, the court becomes functus officio - Post-disposal applications are generally not maintainable except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors or in rare cases where subsequent developments render directions impossible to implement. (Paras 53-54)
Facts of the case:
A decree holder sought revival of a disposed-of execution petition through an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment debtor had previously deposited a sum of money in court pursuant to the directions of the apex court. The executing court had permitted the decree holder to withdraw the amount subject to a corporate undertaking, following which the execution petition was disposed of. The decree holder, having not withdrawn the amount, later sought revival of the proceedings and requested the deposit of the balance decretal amount and conversion of currency at a later date.
Findings of Court:
The application for revival was found to be misconceived and an abuse of the process of law. The deposit of the decretal amount by the judgment debtor constituted a discharge of liability to that extent. The decree holder's decision not to withdraw the available funds amounted to a deemed refusal. Consequently, the court had become functus officio after the disposal of the execution petition.
Issues: Whether the execution petition could be revived under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether the amount deposited in court constitutes satisfaction of the decree despite non-withdrawal by the decree holder.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to reopen concluded proceedings or bypass statutory remedies. Under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC, a deposit in court, when made available for withdrawal, acts as a valid tender; subsequent inaction by the decree holder does not keep the decree unsatisfied nor extend the liability of the judgment debtor. For foreign currency conversion, deposits are reckoned at the rate prevailing on the date of deposit.
Result: Application dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000/-.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Decree Holder: right to realize decree without stay. Judgment Debtor: entire decretal amount already deposited. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
3. Deposit pursuant to judicial order constitutes valid discharge. Non-withdrawal by Decree Holder is deemed refusal. (Para 30 , 31 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 )
4. Court retains inherent power under Section 151 CPC only for procedural gaps, not to revive concluded proceedings. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 55 )
5. Application dismissed as devoid of merit. Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed for abuse of process. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 )
6. Can a decree holder seek revival of a disposed execution petition under Section 151 CPC?
No, once an execution petition is disposed of upon securing the decretal amount, Section 151 cannot be used to revive it as it would unsettle concluded proceedings. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 )
7. What is the legal effect of depositing a decretal amount into court pursuant to a judicial order?
Deposit constitutes valid tender and a discharge of liability to that extent, regardless of actual withdrawal by the decree holder, if the amount is made available. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
8. Does interest cease to run on a decretal amount deposited in court and made available for withdrawal?
Yes, once the deposited amount is unconditionally available to the decree holder, the judgment debtor's liability for further interest on that amount ceases. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 )
9. What is the proper date for determining the exchange rate for converting an award amount in foreign currency?
When an amount is deposited during proceedings, it is converted on the date of deposit. The remaining unpaid portion is converted on the date the award becomes enforceable. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 )
10. Can a party take advantage of a self-imposed restraint to seek revival of concluded proceedings?
No, a party cannot decline to withdraw a deposited amount by its own volition and then assert the decree remains unsatisfied to revive concluded proceedings. (Para 40 , 42 , 46 , 55 )
J U D G M E N T
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
EX.APPL.(OS) 593/2025 (By decree holder praying for revival of the Execution petition)
1. The present Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190811 CPC, has been preferred by the Decree Holder seeking, inter alia, revival of Execution Petition No. 82/201222 Execution Petition, directions to the Judgment Debtor to deposit the alleged balance decretal amount, and release of the amount already lying deposited before this Court along with accrued interest.
2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present Execution Petition, being EX.P. 82/2012, already stood disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 13.05.2022. By the said order, this Court permitted withdrawal of the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor, subject to the Decree Holder furnishing an appropriate corporate undertaking to the satisfaction of this Court.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The disputes between the parties culminated in an Arbitral Award dated 17.12.199833 Arbitral Award, which was assailed by the Judgment Debtor in CS(OS) No. 346A/1999.
4. This Court, vide Judgment and Decree dated 15.03.2005, rejected the objections and made the Arbitral Award a Rule of Court, while reducing the rate of future interest on the principal sum till realisation.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the Judgment Debtor preferred FAO(OS) No. 204/2005 before the Division Bench of this Court.
6. During the pendency of the said Appeal, execution of the Decree was stayed. However, the Appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution, resulting in vacation of the interim stay and thereby enabling the Decree Holder to initiate execution proceedings.
7. The Judgment Debtor filed an application seeking restoration of the Appeal. Since the relief sought therein was not granted to its satisfaction, the matter was thereafter carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (C) No. 16443/2013, which subsequently came to be converted into Civil Appeal No. 4122/2013, vide Judgment dated 26.04.2013, restored FAO(OS) No. 204/2005 to the file of the Division Bench of this Court. Such restoration, however, was made subject to the condition that the Judgment Debtor shall deposit the entire decretal amount, inclusive of accrued interest, before this Court within the period stipulated therein.
9. In compliance with the aforesaid directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Judgment Debtor deposited a sum of ₹2,89,90,273/- before this Court. The said amount was, in terms of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, directed to be kept in a fixed deposit so as to safeguard and secure the interests of the parties pending adjudication of the Appeal.
10. Thereafter, FAO(OS) No. 204/2005 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide Judgment dated 29.10.2018, while granting liberty to the parties to raise issues pertaining to substitution before the executing court.
11. The Judgment Debtor preferred SLP(C) No. 15895/2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Judgment dated 29.10.2018; however, no interim stay was granted.
12. Later, in Execution Petition No. 82/2012, this Court, vide Order dated 13.05.2022, permitted release of the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor along with accrued interest to the Decree Holder, subject to furnishing of a corporate undertaking to refund the same with interest @9% per annum in the event the Judgment Debtor succeeds before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Execution Petition was accordingly disposed of.
13. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide Order dated 06.08.2024, granted leave in SLP(C) No. 15895/2019, limited to the specific issue as to whether the award of interest @ 18% per annum on the sum of US$ 1,30,681.52 was justified, or whether such interest ought to have been as per LIBOR rates only. At the same time, no stay was granted.
14. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Decree Holder has preferred the present Application under Section 151 CPC seeking, inter alia,
