MATHUNNI MATHAI versus M/S. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 25-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
.__, 
MATHUNNI MATHAI 
A 
v. 
M/S. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. AND ANR. 
APRIL 25, 1995 
(R.M. SAHA! AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order XXI-Rule I-Execution of decrer-Judgment debtoi-Decretal 
amount-Deposit pursuant to Cowt's order-No infonnation given to creditor C 
as to manner of appropriation-Appropriation towards interest held 
valid-Effect of 1976 amendment considered. 
An award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 comprised of 
enhanced market value, solatium at 15% and interest at 4% on the add!· 
\ional amount. In cross appeal filed by the appellant, the State, and the D 
company, the enhancement of market value was affirmed but the appellant 
was further granted solatium at 30% of the entire market value, additional 
compensation under Section 23 (1 ·A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) 
Act, 1984 and interest under the amended Section 28. The company chal· 
lenged the order of the High Court by way of Special Leave Petition before E 
Supreme Court which passed an order staying the collections of the en-
hanced compensation, solatium and interest payable by the Company. Con-
sequently the respondent did not deposit any amount and filed an 
application for clarification of the order which was disposed of by observing . 
that what has been actually stayed is disbursement of the compensation to 
the extent it has been escalated by referring to the Amending Act, 1984 by F 
the High Court. The entire compensation not <:overed by the clarification 
shall be paid. Thereafter, the respondent ,deposited the amount on 9th 
January, 1988. After the dismissal of appeal on 12th September, 1989 the 
appellant put the decree in executio_n and claimed that after deducting the 
amount deposited by the respondent towards amount due, they were liable 
to be paid the balance with interest as directed by the court. It was objected G 
on the ground that the respondent having deposited the decretal amount it 
was liable to pay only the amount which was stayed by this Court, namely 
the escalations by the Amending Act of 1984 and the interest thereon. The 
executing court allowed the application. On revision the High Court held 
that inspite of amendment of Order XXI Rule 1 the principle laid down by H 
765 
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 3 S.C.R. 
A this Court on the unamended provision was applicable where thejudgment-
debtor did not specify as to how the amount deposited was to be ap-
propriated. But that principal amount was held not available, in this case, 
as this Court having directed the respondent to deposit the amount as 
awarded by the reference court and what was stayed was the enhancement 
made by the High Court, the deposit made by the respondent on 9th 
B January,1988 was in satisfaction of both the principal and interest along 
with cost as granted by the reference court. 
In appeals to this court on the question whether the decretal amount 
...._ 
deposited by the judgment-debtor in pursuance of an order passed by this 
C Court was to be adjusted towards the principal amount due first or. against 
interest and other charges: 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
D 
HELD: l.The reasoning of the High Court that since the deposit was 
made in pursuance of order of this Court, it would be deemed that the 
deposit was towards principal does not appear to be correct. Factually, 
there was no direction to deposit. The court only granted an interim order 
in respect of escalation. Therefore, the judgment-debtor was bound to 
E deposit the decretal amount in accordance with law. And that is provided 
for by Order XXI, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. But mere deposit 
in absence of any notice and intimation that it was being deposited towards 
principal, it was fo;- the decree-bolder to appropriate it toward the dues. 
[772-C, DJ 
F 
2. For the decrees passed by courts, the provision was made in 
unamended Order XXI Rule 1 prior to 1976 and it was provided that the 
amonnt be deposited in the court whose dnty it was to execute the decrees. 
It was further provided by sub-rule 2 that where any payment was made 
under clause (a) of sub-rule (i) notice of such payment was to be given to 
the decree-holder. The amended sub-rule (2) removes the doubt if there 
G was any that the judgment-debtor is not absolved of the obligation of 
informing the decree-holder by written notice even in respect of deposit in 
Court either directly or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.