STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR versus G.R. NADAGOUDA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 05-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B. 
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 130 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 
v. 
G.R. NADAGOUDA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2547-2548 of 1998) 
JANUARY 05, 2010 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) 
Interest - Payment of - Suit between parties decreed -
Direction by High Court to State authorities to deposit the 
C decretal amount within the prescribed time - In case of 
default, State liable to pay interest@ 15% p.a. to respondents 
from the date of the order up to the date on which the amount 
actually tendered - Rate of interest - Challenge to - Held: 
Rate of interest modified to 10% p.a. from the date of the order 
O till the time specified, failing which, State liable to pay interest 
@15% p.a. 
The question which arose for consideration in these 
appeals is whether the High Court was justified in 
E directing the State Authorities to pay interest@ 15% p.a. 
to the respondents from the date of its order up to the 
date on which the amount was actually tendered in the 
Court. 
F 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The judgment of the High Court is modified 
to the extent that the respondents are to be paid interest 
at the rate of 10 per cent per annum and not 15 per cent 
from the date of the order passed by High Court. It is 
G further directed that in the event, the said amount is not 
paid by the State within six months from the date of 
supply of a copy of this order to it by the respondents, 
the State shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15 
per cent per annum as directed by the High Court. [Para 
H 5] [133-E-F-G] 
130 
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. G.R. NADAGOUDA 
131 
(DEAD) BY LRS. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
A 
2547-2548 of 1998. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.11.1996 of the High 
Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 
714/1992 C/W 2867 of 1991. 
B 
Sanjay R. Hedge, Amit Kr. Chawla, A. Rohen Singh, 
Vikrant Yadav, Anil Verma for the Appellants. 
S.K. Kulkarni, Sangeeta Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. This is an old litigation 
carried on by the State of Karnataka and the dispute centers 
around a long history of sixty years. But it is unnecessary for 
this Court, as rightly pointed out by the High Court in the 
D. 
impugned Judgment, to recount the various developments and 
the manner in which the present position has arisen as now it 
is confined within a very narrow ambit. From the arguments 
advanced by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing 
on behalf of State of Karnataka, the appellant herein, we only 
E 
need to consider the penultimate directions in the impugned 
order. Accordingly, for the proper disposal of the present 
appeals, that portion of the impugned Judgment of the High 
Court may be reproduced as under :-
'The State authorities are accordingly directed to deposit 
the amount in question in the trial Court within an outer limit 
of three months from today. The petitioners would 
undoubtedly be required to pay the requisite court fees on 
F 
the amount in question, but the trial Court will have to take 
G 
note of the fact that under normal circumstances, the Court 
fee is payable on the date when the suit is.filed or in those 
of the cases, where for any reason, the Court fee is· 
directed to be paid when the decree is passed, then, it is 
these two dates that have been taken into consideration. 
H 
A 
8 
c 
D 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 
In this case, the suit was filed in the year 1955, the decree 
came to be passed in the year 1957 and it is therefore, 
on the basis of Court fees that would have been payable 
as on that date, that the petitioners would be liable. The 
Trial Court shall accordingly this factor into account. It shall 
be open to the petitioners to either tender the Court fee 
separately or to pray to the trial Court to adjust the same 
while releasing the payments to them. It is made clear 
however, that if the State commits any default in depositing 
the amounts within the prescriber! period of time, which I 
have deliberately kept suffiCiently long, that in the event of 
any such default, the State shall be liable to pay interest 
quantified at the rate of 15% p.a. to the petitioners from 
the date of this order namely, 15.11.1996 upto the date 
on which the amount is actually tendered in Court." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
2. Before us, the only submission that was raised by Mr. 
Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.