Decretal debt quantification disputed, prior payments and inconsistent computations weighed against accepting the lender's claimed balance due.

Where the existence of a High Court decree was not in dispute, the Tribunal examined the disputed quantification of the balance due by considering prior payments, surrounding material from income tax proceedings, and the claimant's earlier inconsistent computations. It treated those materials as relevant to testing the reliability of the rival figures and declined to accept the lender's computation chart at face value because several payments were not reflected and the lender's own earlier stand was inconsistent. The quantified liability was therefore treated as a disputed issue to be addressed in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court and the High Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Company's prior payments and the proceedings before the income tax authorities were relevant to determining the amount still payable under the High Court decree. (ii) Whether the Lender's computation chart claiming the outstanding decretal amount as on 28.02.2026 could be accepted.

Issue (i): Whether the Company's prior payments and the proceedings before the income tax authorities were relevant to determining the amount still payable under the High Court decree.

Analysis: The decree had attained finality, but the controversy before the Tribunal was confined to the actual computation of the amount due under that decree. The material placed on record showed that the Company asserted unadjusted payments, while the Lender had earlier taken a different stand before the income tax authorities regarding the balance due. The Tribunal found that the income tax proceedings, though not deciding the civil decree, were relevant as surrounding material bearing on the computation dispute and the credibility of the rival figures.

Conclusion: The prior payments and the income tax proceedings were held relevant for examining the correct amount due.

Issue (ii): Whether the Lender's computation chart claiming the outstanding decretal amount as on 28.02.2026 could be accepted.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that several payments made by the Company had not been taken into account in the Lender's chart. It also noticed that the figures asserted before the Tribunal were inconsistent with the Lender's own earlier calculation before the income tax appellate forum. In light of those inconsistencies and the pendency of proceedings before the High Court concerning the computation of dues, the Tribunal held that the Lender's claimed figure could not be accepted at face value.

Conclusion: The Lender's computation of the outstanding amount was not accepted.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to adopt the Lender's claimed computation and treated the debt quantification as a disputed issue requiring consideration in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court and the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the existence of a decree is not in dispute but the quantified liability is contested, the adjudicating forum may examine prior payments, contemporaneous proceedings, and consistency of the claimant's own earlier stand to test the reliability of the claimed balance due.

---