DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BHAI SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid execution appeal, namely, EFA(OS) 9/2007 has been preferred by the appellant DDA to impugn the judgment dated 20th March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Execution Application No. 81/2006 in Execution Petition No. 168/2005, whereby the said application preferred by the appellant herein, who was the judgment debtor in the execution petition, has been dismissed. EA No. 81/2006 had been preferred by the appellant to seek a direction that the amount of Rs. 19,95,291/- be refunded to the appellant/judgment debtor.

(2.) SO far as FAO(OS) 93/2002 is concerned, the same was disposed of by this Court on 20th April, 2004. However, the respondent/decree holder thereafter moved CM No. 5462/2007 to permit the withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 12,88,770/- lying deposited in this Court. On this application, the Court on 23rd April, 2008 passed an order that the same would be considered at the time of disposal of EFA(OS) 9/2007.

(3.) EVENTUALLY , the appeal was allowed on 20th April, 2004 and the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2001 rejecting the appellant's objections to the award was set aside. The Division Bench held that the objections to the Award ought to have been considered under the Arbitration Act, 1940. It was, therefore, directed that the objections shall stand revived and that the learned Single Judge should decide the objections afresh according to law. No specific order was passed on the aforesaid application preferred by the respondent, namely, CM No. 443/2003. However, since the appeal had been allowed and the objections restored, obviously the respondent could not have been held to be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge heard the objections preferred by the DDA and the same were dismissed on 15.7.2005. Consequently, the respondent was held to be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 14,40,386/- with interest w.e.f. 13.03.1986. The only variation made in the award was with regard to the interest granted in favour of the respondent. The learned Single Judge directed that :