Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through The General Manager, Sohagpur Area, District Shahdol
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.05 15:45:16 +0530 2025:CGHC:29336 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 940 of 2018 Padam Kumar Singhania S/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Singhania Aged About 60 Years R/o Opp. Railway Station Vikrampur Road, Ward No.15, Burhar District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh., District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through The General Manager, Sohagpur Area, District Shahdol Madhya Pradesh., District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01. 07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Executing Court/District Judge, Bilaspur dated 18.04.2018, in Execution Case No. 111/2004, whereby the learned Executing Court has appropriated 50% amount deposited by the respondent/judgment debtor contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. R.S. Avtar Singh and company reported in (2013) 1 SCC 243: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 230 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 838. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an award was passed by the arbitrator on 07.07.2004, whereby, the respondent was directed to 2 make payment of Rs. 74,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 01.01.2000 till the date of its realization. He would further submit that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1966) was preferred by the respondent and it was dismissed, and thereafter, an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Act, 1966 was also dismissed, and subsequently, the SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that in M.A. No. 254 of 2006, the respondent was directed to deposit 50% of the award amount and the rest of the award was stayed vide order dated 28.02.2006. He would also submit that the respondent deposited 50% of the award amount with the learned Executing Court. He would contend that the learned Executing Court adjusted 50% of the deposit against the principal amount and 50% against the interest part and thus the approach of the learned Executing Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.S. Avtar Singh (supra). He would refer to para 31.1 of the judgment and would submit that where there is no specific indication/direction for the appropriation of the decretal amount, the adjustments be made firstly towards payment of interest and costs and thereafter towards payment of the principal amount. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 18.04.2018. He would further argue that a direction may be issued to the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. On the other hand, Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate would oppose. He would submit that pursuant to the interim order passed in MA No. 254 of 2006 dated 28.02.2006, 50% of the award amount was deposited with the Executing Court. He would further submit that the learned Executing Court 3 rightly adjusted 50% of the deposit with the principal amount and 50% against the interest part. He would also submit that the learned Executing Court has passed a well reasoned order pursuant to directions issued in the award as well as the interim order passed in MA No. 254 of 2006. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, an award was passed by the arbitrator on 07.07.2004, whereby, the respondent was directed to make payment of Rs. 74,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 01.01.2000 till the date of its realization. The petition preferred by the respondent under Section 34 and the appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 were dismissed, even the SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In MA No. 254 of 2006, an interim order was passed and the respondent was directed to deposit 50% of the award amount. In the pending execution proceeding, the respondent deposited 50% of the award amount. The learned Executing Court adjusted 50% of the deposit against the principal amount and 50% against the interest part. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.S. Avtar Singh (supra) in para 31.1, while dealing with the issue held as under:- “31.1 The general rule of appropriation towards a decretal amount was that such an amount was to be adjusted strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the decree and in the absence of such directions adjustments be made firstly towards payment of interest and costs and thereafter towards payment of the principal amount subject, of course, to any agreement between the parties.” 7. From a bare reading of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it 4 can safely be held that when there is no direction with regard to the appropriation of decretal amount, adjustment shall be made firstly towards the payment of interest and costs and thereafter towards the payment of the principal amount. 8. In the present case, the learned Executing Court has committed an error of law by adjusting 50% of the deposit against the principal amount and 50% against the interest part; therefore, the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 18.04.2018 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Executing Court to decide the issue afresh in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.S. Avtar Singh (supra). 9. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant 5 Head Note Appropriation of decretal amount in Execution proceedings- When there is no direction with regard to appropriation of decretal amount either in decree or award, adjustment shall be made firstly towards payment of interest and costs and thereafter towards payment of the principal amount. नि(cid:2)ष्पाद(cid:2) का्(cid:9)वाही में डि(cid:16)्ቅीत राशि(cid:21) का निवनि(cid:2)्ोज(cid:2) जब डि(cid:16)्ቅी ्ा अडि(cid:26)नि(cid:2)्ቓ(cid:9)् में डि(cid:16)्ቅीत राशि(cid:21) के (cid:2) हो, बाद मूल राशि(cid:21) के भुगता(cid:2) के लिलए निक्ा जाएगा । तो समा्ोज(cid:2) सव(cid:9)्ቚथम ब््ाज और लागत के भुगता(cid:2) के निवनि(cid:2)्ोज(cid:2) के संबं(cid:26) में कोई नि(cid:2)द (cid:21) लिलए और उसके