MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. NEPA LTD. NEPANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2012 passed in a Execution M.J.C. No.44/12 by District Judge, Burhanpur, petitioner has preferred this revision.

(2.) The facts unfolded to the present case are the applicant filed a dispute before the arbitrator claiming a sum of Rs.1,05,65,500/-. After filing the reply and on adjudication of the dispute the award was passed on 14.4.2000 refusing the claim as demanded, but to allow the refund of balance amount of security Rs.20,59,800/- deposited with Nepa Limited, deducting the litigation expenses, arrears of rent and electricity charges of the accommodation let out to the claimant Rs.6,10,500/-. It is also held that the balance amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum, and claimant shall vacate the Coal block on or before 30.4.2000. Against the award, claimant as well as Nepa Limited both filed the appeals bearing M.A. No.363/2001 and M.A. No.868/2001. Upon analogous hearing, this court vide order dated 2.2.2012, dismissed the same but during pendency of those appeals, as per order dated 30.10.2001, recovery of the balance amount was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount by Nepa Limited within a period of 10 days in the executing court. The Court also permitted to withdraw the amount so deposited after furnishing personal undertaking and surety to re-deposit of the said amount, if directed by the Court. 3. It is not in dispute except to deposit the 50% amount, remaining amount and to deposit the half of the amount within the time prescribed under the order of this Court interest @ 18% has been calculated and paid. However, in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 of CPC, objection was raised before the executing Court that mere deposit of the amount under the interim order of the High Court would not amount to withdraw the interest on the said amount from the date of quashing of the interim order by the High Court. It is urged that the interest on the said amount also is payable till it is realized in full satisfaction from the date of its deposit till passing the final order by the High Court in the appeal.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel representing Nepa Limited contends that on filing Appeal No. 363/2001, the High Court vide order dated 30.10.2001 stayed the execution of the remaining amount subject to deposit of 50% amount. The decree holder was granted liberty to realize the said amount. He has withdrawn the amount on furnishing the security as directed by the Court, however, on dismissing the appeal by the High Court, he would not be entitled to claim interest on 50% amount deposited by the Nepa Limited as per interim order of the Court claiming interest thereon. It is urged that the deposit made in the Court would be treated to be a deposit under Order 21 Rule 4 of the CPC, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to claim any interest and the executing Court has rightly dismissed the execution on full satisfaction.