CENTRAL GOVT. OF INDIA versus RAJ DEVI ALIAS RAJ KUMARI & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 432 · Decided: 05-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
CENTRAL GOVT. OF INDIA
v.
RAJ DEVI ALIAS RAJ KUMARI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4623 of 2021)
AUGUST 05, 2021
[K. M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Interest – Payable on solatium – The decree was put in
execution and the Execution Court had passed the order which is
impugned by the appellant, by which the appellant is directed to
pay interest on solatium from the date the 1st respondent was
deprived of her possession – The dispute in question which arises
for consideration is whether interest is payable on solatium from
the date possession was taken from the 1st respondent – The physical
possession was taken on 16.06.1990 – The contention of the
appellant, however, is that this is a case where the principle which
was enunciated by Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India
(2006) 8 SCC 457 would apply and interest on solatium could be
granted only from the date of the judgment of Supreme Court in
Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 i.e. 19-09-2001 – Held: In
the Award passed, it is clear that interest is not seen granted on
solatium – What is granted is only solatium – The judgment of the
High Court in appeal carried by the 1st respondent, therein also, it
is clear that the High Court has not granted interest on solatium –
Therefore, it is a case which must be dealt with in terms of the
declaration of law made in Gurpreet Singh, which held that “But if
the award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate court
does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or
in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly
or impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate court, and
merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open
to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the
compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event
interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution.
Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can
be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions
and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from
the date of the judgment in Sunder (19-09-2001) and not for any
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 432
432
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
prior period”– Thus, it is ordered that the 1st respondent will be
entitled to interest on solatium from the date of Sunder v. Union of
India viz. 19-09-2001 – Accordingly, appeals are allowed.
Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 :
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 422; Sunder v. Union of India
(2001) 7 SCC 211 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 176 – relied
on.
Central Government of India v. Bakhta & Another etc.
(SLP (C)Nos. 21784-21799 of 2013) – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 422
relied on
Para 4
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 176
relied on
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4623
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 1400 of 2015 (O&M).
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, A. K. Kohli, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,
Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Siddhant Kohli, A. K. Sharma,
Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advs. for the Appellant.
Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the appellant, and Mr. J.S. Thind, learned counsel
for the 1st respondent.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld order dated
11.11.2014 by which the objections filed by the appellant were disposed
of by the Execution Court and the appellant was directed to make payment
on or before 12.01.2015.
CENTRAL GOVT. OF INDIA v. RAJ DEVI ALIAS RAJ KUMARI
& ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
The dispute in question which arises for our consideration is whether
interest is payable on solatium from the date possession was taken from
the 1st respondent. There is no doubt that physical possession was taken
in this case on 16.06.1990. The contention of the appellant, however, is
that this is a case where the principle which has been enunciated by this
Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 would apply
and interest on solatium could be granted only from the date of the
judgment of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 i.e.
19-09-2001.
We may notice the reas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.