M. JAISANKAR v. M/S GLOBAL ASSOCIATES

M. JAISANKAR S/O. N. MUTHUKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. NO.242, B, RANKA COLONY, BILEKAHALLI, B.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076. REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI. NARAYANSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. …PETITIONER ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. MITHUN G.A.,ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. M/S GLOBAL ASSOCIATES, NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. REP. BY H.J. SIWANI AND M.J.SIWANI,

#2. H.J. SIWANI, M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES, NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:33091-DB WP No. 13661 of 2025 HC-KAR

#3. M.J. SIWANI, M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATIONS, NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/03/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION IN EA NO.11/2022, AS REFLECTED IN ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated

05.03.2024 passed by the State Commission in Execution Application Nos.11 and 12/2022, which is a common order, whereby the claim of the petitioner with regard to interest beyond the period mentioned in the final order of the State Commission, was rejected and the execution petitions were dismissed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33091-DB WP No. 13661 of 2025 HC-KAR recording that the Judgment debtors had complied with the order of the Commission and paid the interest as per the order upto 26.10.2013.

#2. The petitioner's claim interest

24.10.2019 to 12.07.2022. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 1(4), the petitioner is entitled to interest up till the date of payment of the amount, which was in the year 2019.

#3. A perusal of the record reflects that the State Commission by its order of 24.07.2019 had directed as follows: "All the above complaints are allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- each. In C.C.No.98/2009 the Opposite Parties are hereby directed to refund Rs.37,62,484/- to the complainant with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till 26.10.2013 the date of Occupancy Certificate. In C.C.No.122/2009 the Opposite Parties are hereby directed to refund Rs.33,74,528/- to the complainant with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till 26.10.2013 the date of Occupancy Certificate. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33091-DB WP No. 13661 of 2025 HC-KAR In C.C.No.133/2009 the Opposite Parties are hereby directed to refund Rs.31,72,260/- to the complainant with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till 26.10.2013 the date of Occupancy Certificate. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount in all cases within three months from the date of this order. Failing which, the complainants are at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings and criminal proceedings u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 separately. Keep the original copy of the order in CC.No.98/2009 and the copies thereof in all connected complaints. Forward free copies to both the parties".

#4. Admittedly, interest has been paid till

26.10.2013 in compliance of the aforesaid order of the State Commission. Rule 1 of Order XXI of CPC, reads as follows: [1.Modes of paying money under decree.- (1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, follows, namely:- (a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment evidenced in writing; or - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33091-DB WP No. 13661 of 2025 HC-KAR (c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs. (2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly registered post, acknowledgement due. to him by (3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1), the money order or payment through bank, as the following case may be, shall accurately state the particulars, namely:- (a) the number of the original suit; (b) the names of the parties or where there are more than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendants; (c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say, whether it is towards the principal, interest or costs; (d) the number of the execution case of the Court, where such case is pending; and (e) the name and address of the payer. (4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2). (5) On any amount paid under clause (b) of sub- rule (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of such payment: Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal money order or payment through a bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on the money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:33091-DB WP No. 13661 of 2025 HC-KAR course of business of the postal authorities or the bank, as the case may be.]

#5. Though sub-rule (4) speaks of service of notice referred to in sub-rule (2) of the Order XXI, the interest ceasing to run, would have to be looked in light of the decree made. In this case, had the final order of the State Commission not prescribed a cut off date up till 26.10.2013, the petitioner would have been right in his submission that the interest would continue to run till the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code.

#6. However, in the instant case, given the order of the State Commission, it is evident that the State Commission has refused interest beyond the date specified in the order of 24.07.2019, that is

26.10.2013. Therefore, when the provision of sub- rule (4) of Rule 1 of Order XXI is read in conjunction - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:33091-DB WP No. 13661 of 2025 HC-KAR with sub-section (2) of Section 34 of CPC, it is evident that the recourse sought by the petitioner to sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 of Order XXI is misplaced. For the reason aforesaid, we find no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17