IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 191 of 2005() -------------------------------- EP.26/2003 IN OS.24/1978 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONERS-DECREE HOLDERS & ADDL. DECREE HOLDERS 10 AND 11: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KIRIT KUMAR TAPULAL BHAMMER, S/O. TAPULAL CHAKUBHAI, RESIDING AT MUKUND MANSION, 3RD FLOOR, 14, DARABASHA ROAD, OFF NAPEANSEA ROAD, BOMBAY-36 (PLAINTIFF). 2. VASANT KUMAR TAPULAL, RESIDING AT C/O. BHILAI, WEIGH BRIDGE P.O., KHUSIPER, BHILAI, B.(M.P.) 3. MAHENDRA KUMAR TAPULAL, RESIDING AT MUKUND MANSION, 3RD FLOOR, 14, DARABSA LANA, OFF NAPEAN SEA ROAD, (NAPEAN SEA ROAD), BOMBAY-400 036. 4. KIRAN BHAMMER, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 5. MUKUND BHAMMER, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 6. MRS.DAMYANTI A., PANCHEMATIA, RESIDING AT MUKUND MANSION, 3RD FLOOR, 14, DARABSE LANA, OFF NAPEAN SEA ROAD, (NAPEAN SEA ROAD), BOMBAY-400 036. 7. TARULATH. M., SEJPAL, RESIDING AT MUKUND MANSION, 3RD FLOOR, 14, DARBSE LANE, OFF NAPEAN SEA ROAD, (NAPEAN SEA ROAD) BOMBAY-400 036. 8. GEETA BHAMMER, RESIDING AT MUKUND MANSION, 3RD FLOOR, 14, DARABSE LANE, OFF NAPEAN SEA ROAD, (NAPEAN SEA ROAD), BOMBAY-400 036. 9. SMT.HANSABEAN VASANTKUMAR, W/O. VASANTKUMAR, TAPULAL, RESIDING AT C/O. BHILAL WEIGHT BRIDGE, P.O. KHURSIPAR, BHILAI-2, MADHYA PRADESH (DEFENDANT NO.4). CRP.No. 191 of 2005 10. MR. BHUSHAN KARIA (SON), BHAGWANDAS MANSION, SHIVAJI CHOWK, KALYAN (WEST)-421 301, MAHARASHTRA. 11. MRS. NEETA KURUSHA IRANI (DAUGHTER) C/O. SHRI.GANESH JUMBO ZEROX KRISHNA CINEMA BUILDING, SHIVAJI CHOWK, KALYAN (WEST)-421 301, MAHARASHTRA. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM, SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH. RESPONDENT-JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------------ KAKUBAI, S/O CHAKUBAI, RESIDING AT KRISHNA KUNJ, PALLIARAKAVU ROAD, COCHIN-2. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN, SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SRI.SUNIL SHANKER. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs CRP.No. 191 of 2005 ORDER ON I.A.NO.515/2005 IN C.R.P.NO.191/2005 DISMISSED 21/01/2011. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.191 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kochi in E.P.No.26/2003 in O.S.No.24/1978. The grievance of the revision petitioners is that the court below did not grant any interest on the goodwill amount and therefore it requires interference. 2. It has to be stated that a final decree on dissolution of partnership was passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kochi on 7.5.1987. The court held that the plaintiff is to get `46,715/=, the second defendant is to get `38,229.50 and the 4th defendant is to get `93,430/= as their share in the goodwill. Again the court held that the plaintiff is to get `63,790/=, the second defendant is to get `3,806.50 and the 4th defendant is to get `1,34,101.50 towards interest from 1.4.1975 to 31.10.1984. It is also recorded that they will be entitled to get interest to the future periods also. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the : 2 : C.R.P.NO.191 OF 2005 revision petitioners is that this statement takes in interest with respect to goodwill as well. But I am afraid that such a view cannot be taken for the reason that the court below has accepted the Commissioner's report and the Commissioner in para 19 of his report while dealing with the interest only calculated the interest on the capital amount from 1.4.1975 to 3.10.1984 and arrived at a figure. When goodwill is calculated, as he has not mentioned anything about interest, the court while passing final decree had just extracted the amount under goodwill and then extracted the amount of capital + interest and held that future interest will also be obtained for the same. So that refers only to the portion where interest is calculated by the Commissioner and awarded by the court below and it relates only to the capital and not the goodwill. It has to be stated that when that finding has become final and it is not challenged before any appropriate forum, the court executing the decree cannot go beyond the decree. To my understanding as well, as the final decree proceedings does not entitle the parties to claim interest on : 3 : C.R.P.NO.191 OF 2005 goodwill in execution proceedings, interest cannot be granted for goodwill and therefore I do not find any error committed by the court below in refusing the interest for goodwill. Therefore, the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : C.R.P.NO.191 OF 2005 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A/A.S/C.R.P.NO.OF ............................................. 17th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T/O R D E R