: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1517 OF 2006 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2002 IN AWARD DATED 12.1.2000 IN SUIT NO.4655 OF 1996 Kalpana J. Goragandhi ....Claimant V/s. Kiran B. Goragandhi & Anr. ....Respondents WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1546 OF 2007 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2002 IN AWARD DATED 12.1.2000 IN SUIT NO.4655 OF 1996 Kalpana J. Goragandhi ....Claimant V/s. Kiran B. Goragandhi & Anr. ....Respondents WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1582 OF 2007 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2002 IN AWARD DATED 12.1.2000 IN SUIT NO.4655 OF 1996 Kalpana J. Goragandhi ....Claimant V/s. Kiran B. Goragandhi & Anr. ....Respondents : 2 : Ms.Purnima Bhatia for the Claimant. Mr.Mahendra Ghelani with Mr.Dhawal Kenia i/b Law Charter for Respondent No.1. Mr.Vivek Kantawala for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C. : 1. Chamber Summons Nos.1517 of 2006 is taken out by the Applicant to challenge the order of the Commissioner for Taking Accounts in the above execution application. Chamber Summons No.1582 of 2007 is taken out on behalf of Respondent No.1 for an order directing the Sheriff of Bombay to accept from Respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.16,81,249=39 ps. and for an order that the execution proceedings initiated against Respondent No.1 be ordered to be withdrawn and decree as against Respondent No.1 be marked as fully satisfied. A similar relief is claimed in prayer (C) of Chamber Summons No.1546 of 2007. Admittedly an aggregate amount of Rs.33,62,498=63 ps. has been paid towards the interest by Respondent No.1 on behalf of himself and Respondent No.2. 2. If the contention of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 regarding computation of interest is correct, the : 3 : Respondents are entitled to have the decree marked fully satisfied and to have further proceedings in execution dropped. 3. The execution proceedings were in respect of award dated 12.1.2000. Clause (C) of the award reads as under :- "(C). The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally do pay to the Claimant the sum of Rs.48 lacs (Rupees Forty eight lacs) on the footing of willful default (exclusive of Rs.4 lacs paid to the Claimant during the pendency of this Arbitration and Rs.5,000 paid to the Claimant after Jaysingh’s death and payment to the Income tax authorities the Claimant’s share of Income Tax) with interest on Rs.48 lacs (Rupees fort eight lacs) from the date of the Award at the rate of 18% per annum till payment." 4. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.48,00,000/- was paid by the Respondents under cover of their respective letters both dated 17.11.2003. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 each forwarded the cheque of Rs.24,00,000/- in favour of the claimant. Each of the letters specifically stated that the tender was towards the principal sum of Rs.48,00,000/- awarded in her favour. The letter written by Respondent No.1 goes a step further. It specifically stated that the claimant is at liberty to accept the payment and : 4 : encash the cheque on account of the principal in full and final settlement of all the claims against him and on a further condition that the execution proceedings against him would be withdrawn. In paragraph 4 of the letter, it is stated that it is only after what is stated in the letter was acceptable to the claimant that she was at liberty to encash the cheque. 5. It is further pertinent to note that the claimant’s advocate by their letters dated 8.12.2003 and 13.1.2004 addressed to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively expressly stated that the said cheques were "towards the balance principal sum issued". It is further pertinent to note that the claimant’s advocate computed the interest payable separately in the sum of Rs.33,62,498=63 ps. 6. This then makes it clear that the tender of Rs.48,00,000/- was towards the principal. It is further clear that the tender was accepted even without any demur as to the condition on which it was made namely "towards principal". 7. I am with respect unable to agree to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant that the context and the purport of the letters are : 5 : not clear in this regard. There is nothing which suggests anything to the contrary. Admittedly the amount of interest was deposited by Respondent No.1 on behalf of himself and on behalf of Respondent No.2 aggregating to Rs.33,62,498=63 ps. in this Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 agree unconditionally that the amounts may be withdrawn by the claimant with interest thereon, if any. It is so ordered. 8. In the circumstances, Chamber Summons No.1582 of 2007 is allowed in terms of prayer (a-i). Chamber Summons No.1517 of 2006 is dismissed. Chamber Summons No.1546 of 2007 is made absolute in terms of prayer (c). It is further ordered and declared that the decree regarding payment of a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- and interest thereon stands fully satisfied. The execution proceedings in respect thereof are hereby set-aside and cancelled. It is clarified that Respondent No.2 is at liberty to adopt proceedings in accordance with law for the purpose of recovery of shares allegedly wrongly retained by the claimant. 9. All the above three Chamber Summons are accordingly disposed of.