IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4632 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision:07.10.2009 Kulbhushan Gupta ...Petitioner Versus The Union of India ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) C.M. No.23375-CII of 2009 The application is allowed, as prayed for. Civil Revision No.4632 of 2007 1. The Executing Court while giving effect to an award passed by an Arbitrator directed the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor to give their respective memo of calculations. The admitted case was that the award provided for Rs.3,73,021.09 with interest at 12% per annum. The award had been passed on 22.07.1989. The first payment was made by the Judgment Debtor on 01.11.1996 to the tune of Rs.4,21,950/-. The principal and interest due till that date admittedly worked out to Rs.6,79,074/-. The balance of amount that was payable on that date was, therefore, Rs.2,57,124/-. The contention of the Judgment Debtor was Civil Revision No.4632 of 2007(O&M) - 2 - that when an amount of Rs.4,21,950/- was paid, it should have been appropriated towards the principal first namely, for Rs.3,73,021.09 and the balance amount must have been appropriated with interest. The Executing Court accepted the contention of the Judgment Debtor and directed that the amount that was found due on 01.11.1996 namely Rs.2,57,124/- should be paid forthwith along with cost assessed at Rs.11,000/- and if the amount was not be paid within 30 days, the Decree Holder shall be entitled also to 18% interest and cost. 2. It is this order of the Executing Court that was passed on 02.06.2007 that is assailed by the Decree Holder before this Court. His first contention is that the Executing Court could not go behind the terms of the award which was made by the decree of Court. If the decree had provided for interest at 12% on the principal amount determined as Rs.3,68,544/-, the Executing Court cannot disallow the interest and require the Judgment Debtor to pay only the balance of amount which was payable on 01.11.1996. The next contention of the learned counsel for the Decree Holder is that when an amount was paid by a Debtor, it shall first be appropriated towards the interest component and the remaining alone shall go for reduction of the principal. The appropriation cannot be made only towards the principal if what was paid by the Judgment Debtor was less than the outstanding principal and interest. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would state that since the principal amount had been determined in the award only at Rs.3,73,021.09, the Judgment Debtor was entitled to insist that the amount which was paid by the Judgment Debtor initially on Civil Revision No.4632 of 2007(O&M) - 3 - 01.11.1996 must have been wholly appropriated towards the principal which was sought by the Judgment Debtor. In my view, such a contention is not legally tenable, for, a Debtor is not entitled to seek for an appropriation only towards the principal when there was an outstanding interest payable. The order of the Executing Court also directing that the amount that would become payable in would be only the balance amount as found due on 01.11.1996 and that no further invest accruals would be made, was not legally tenable. The Executing Court had no power to go beyond the terms of the decree. The Decree Holder had been declared entitled to the interest. It is now stated that the Judgment Debtor has paid on 30.06.2009 Rs.2,57,124/- along with costs as directed by the Court. This payment will not constitute a discharge and the Decree Holder is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.2,57,124/- at 12% from 01.11.1996 to 30.06.2007. The order of the Executing Court is, under the circumstances, set aside and the Decree Holder shall be entitled to recover the amount as determined by me as aforesaid. 4. The Civil Revision is allowed in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) 07.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev