CRA/1091/1999 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 1091 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Applicant(s) Versus PARAS BUILDER & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. RULE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s) : 1, MR PRAKASH K JANI for Opponent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 17/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners are State and its officers. Respondents CRA/1091/1999 2/4 JUDGMENT are the original plaintiffs. They had filed Special Civil Suit No.102 of 1993 seeking recovery of certain unpaid dues of the plaintiffs by the Government. The suit was decreed on 27.3.1998 and the defendants i.e. present petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.28,37,563/- with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The plaintiffs filed Darkhast Application No.2/98 to recover a sum of Rs. 39,98,478/- which included the principal decretal sum, cost and interest. 1.1 State has preferred First Appeal No.3401 of 1998. Along with the appeal, State filed application for Stay being Civil Application No.6321/1998 in which Division Bench of this court on 10.7.1998 granted stay in favour of the appellants on condition of depositing the amount claimed in Special Darkhast No.2 of 1998 within certain time. Upon such deposit, the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the said amount by furnishing security to the extent of 50% of the amount and Bank guarantee for the rest. 1.2 The State did not deposit the amount within the time permitted. However, eventually deposit was made on 21.12.1998 and the amount was withdrawn by the plaintiffs after fulfilling the conditions contained in order dated 10.7.1998. 1. Since there was delay in depositing the amount by the Government, the plaintiffs claimed further CRA/1091/1999 3/4 JUDGMENT interest of Rs.2,45,153/- for a total period of 248 days between 17.4.1998 to 20.12.1998 by filing fresh Darkhast No.1 of 1999. The State once again deposited the said amount before the trial Court on 27.3.1999. On 1.4.1999, however, the State moved an application for withdrawal of amount primarily on the ground that excess deposit was made. Learned Executing Judge passed his impugned order on 15th April, 1999 permitting the plaintiffs to withdraw the entire additional amount deposited by the Government but imposed a condition that the plaintiffs will execute bond of Rs.1 Lac and further that eventually, if it is found that the plaintiffs have to return the amount of Rs.71,633/-, they shall do so with interest. Apparently, the contention of the State is that though the decree holders were entitled to receive simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal decreetal sum for the delayed payment, such interest could not have been collected on the entire amount of Rs.39,98,478/- as claimed by the plaintiffs in Drakhast No.2 of 1998 since the said sum of RS.39,98,478/- included the interest on the principal decreetal sum from the date of filing of the suit. 2. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I find substance in the submission of the learned AGP that permitting the plaintiffs to claim interest on the entire amount of Rs.39,98,478/- would amount to granting interest on interest whereas, the trial Court had in the decree provided for simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Since it is not in dispute that the amount of CRA/1091/1999 4/4 JUDGMENT Rs.71,633/- represents the calculation of interest on interest, the State is entitled to seek refund of the said sum. Though, learned Judge in the impugned order has stated that such refund will be with interest, there is some ambiguity about the rate specified by the learned Judge. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, directed that the respondents herein; original plaintiffs shall refund the sum of Rs.71,633/- to the present petitioners with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of withdrawal until payment, which may be done within eight weeks from today. 3. With these directions, Civil Revision Application is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) ashish//