2026 (3) TMI 41 - AT - IBC

Quantification of Decretal Amounts: lender's computation found prima facie unreliable due to unadjusted payments and inconsistent pleadings.

Tribunal examined rival computation charts and subsequent proceedings to determine whether a legally enforceable decretal amount as claimed by the lender ... Quantification of decretal debt - relevance of income-tax proceedings to civil decree computation - entertaining Section 151 CPC application casts doubt on decree calculations - HELD THAT:- We have noted that after the judgment of learned Single Judge on 31.10.2022, an amount of Rs. 3 crores was deposited immediately on 02.11.2022 and after order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.10.2024, the judgment debtor has deposited an amount of Rs. 60,98,847/- by Bank Draft dated 29.11.2024. It is noticed that after the decree passed in the suit, learned Single Judge has entertained the application filed by the Company, where before the High Court the Company has undertaken to pay the entire amount and has already deposit Rs. 3 crores. Learned Single Judge has not passed any final order in the IA, which was filed by the Company in the Summary Suit. The submissions, which have been made by the learned Counsel for the Company before us regarding the quantum of amount as claimed by the Company, cannot be held to be without substance. Quantification of decretal debt - The computation of the decretal amount claimed by the decree-holder cannot be accepted without adjustment for payments and reconciliations shown by the judgment-debtor. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined rival computation charts filed by the parties and found that the decree-holder's chart did not take into account various payments and adjustments asserted by the judgment-debtor (including amounts detailed in the judgment-debtor's Chart C and amounts deposited pursuant to court directions). Having regard to the decree dated 11.01.2018 and subsequent proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that the decree-holder's continuing annual accruals in its chart (resulting in the claimed figure) ignore admitted receipts and undertakings and therefore cannot be accepted as a final quantification without consideration of those adjustments. [Paras 17] The decree-holder's computation is prima facie unacceptable insofar as it disregards payments and adjustments asserted by the judgment-debtor; the quantified claim cannot be accepted without accounting for those matters. Relevance of income-tax proceedings to civil decree computation - Proceedings and findings under the Income Tax Act (relating to Assessment Year 2012-13) are relevant and may be considered in assessing the quantum due under the civil decree. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal considered the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax and the ITAT, noting that before the ITAT the decree-holder had advanced a case and a chart which concluded that the outstanding as on 31.03.2012 was a specific lesser sum. The Tribunal held that those tax proceedings, decided after the summary-suit decree, are relevant to the question of whether certain amounts were shown or reflected by the decree-holder and therefore can be looked into while determining the correct quantification of the decretal amount. [Paras 17] The Income Tax proceedings (Assessment Year 2012-13) are relevant to the dispute over the decretal computation and may be examined. Entertaining Section 151 CPC application casts doubt on decree calculations - The fact that the Delhi High Court entertained IA No.17634/2022 under Section 151 CPC and directed filing of detailed computations, together with deposits and undertakings by the judgment-debtor, prima facie casts doubt on the decree-holder's claimed calculations. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded the Single Judge's order requiring the decree-holder to file a computation showing adjustments of amounts already paid, and noted subsequent deposits by the judgment-debtor. On that basis the Tribunal observed that the entertain ment of the Section 151 application and the directions given by the High Court raise a prima facie doubt about the accuracy of the decree-holder's claimed figures and preclude accepting the decree-holder's standalone computation without further verification by the appropriate forum. [Paras 17] Entertaining of IA No.17634/2022 and the High Court's directions create a prima facie doubt on the decree-holder's calculations and require further examination. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the decree-holder's computation of the decretal amount is not to be accepted without accounting for payments and adjustments asserted by the judgment-debtor; the Income Tax proceedings (Assessment Year 2012-13) and the pending Section 151 CPC application before the Delhi High Court are relevant and cast prima facie doubt on the decree-holder's figures. The parties may place this order before the Supreme Court as directed. Issues: (i) Whether a legally enforceable decretal amount in favour of the decree-holder exists and can be quantified as claimed by the lender (Rs. 12,51,18,074.49 as on 28.02.2026) or whether the decree-holder's computation is vitiated by non adjustment of payments and inconsistent pleadings in other proceedings.Analysis: The Tribunal examined the decree of 11.01.2018 and competing computation charts placed on record by the parties, along with subsequent proceedings including (a) an application under Section 151 CPC filed in the summary suit in which the judgment debtor undertook to pay and deposited amounts, (b) deposits made by the judgment debtor (including Rs. 3 crores and a further Rs. 60,98,847/-), and (c) income tax proceedings where the lender had made inconsistent pleadings and the ITAT recorded calculations showing a materially lower outstanding figure (Rs. 96,48,480/- as at 31.03.2012). The Tribunal found that various payments identified in the judgment debtor's chart were not taken into account in the lender's summary suit computation, that the lender had adopted a different position before Income Tax Authorities, and that the High Court's entertaining of the Section 151 CPC application and related undertakings prima facie cast doubt on the lender's claimed computation. The Tribunal concluded that accepting the lender's chart (which yields Rs. 12,51,18,074/- as on 28.02.2026) would disregard these observations and materials.Conclusion: The Tribunal did not accept the lender's claimed quantified decretal amount and held that the lender's computation is prima facie unreliable in light of unadjusted payments and inconsistent pleadings; the Tribunal recorded findings casting doubt on the claimed decretal figure in favour of the respondent.