TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) received on 1-4-1976) as on 5-9-1977 at Rs. 12,08,806.83 ps. (Rupees Twelve lakhs eight thousand eight hundred six and paise eighty three only) as per the statement of account enclosed herewith and agree to pay the said dues as follows alongwith future interest @ 5% above the bank rate prevailing from time to time subject to a minimum of 13½% per annum or at such other rate of interest as may be decided by the Corporation for similar advances from time to time, with half yearly rests on product basis and expenses and cost of litigation. The increased rate of interest shall apply from the 1st January, 1977. [Emphasis supplied] ****** 7. That the company and the Corporation further specifically agree that on non-payment of consenting two instalments of the repayment of the loan for the loan or interest or expenses hereinabove mentioned or on breach of any of the terms and conditions of this compromise, the Corporation shall have the right to receive the whole dues in one lump-sum and to get the compromise decree executed by sale of mortgaged and attached properties and to ask the lessee to pay the rent directly to the Corporation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts are not entitled to charge interest on half yearly rests basis. Hence this Appeal. 5. On behalf of the Appellants Mr. Jain submitted that the decree was in terms of the compromise deed. It was submitted that the compromise deed, which had been signed by both the parties, clearly provided that interests could be charged on half yearly rests basis. It was submitted that under Order 23 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code the Court has to pass the decree in terms of the compromise. It was submitted that the words "the defendant shall pay the interest on this amount at the rate of 5% more than the current Bank interest rate which are not be less than 13½%" do not alter the main provision in the compromise deed whereunder interest is payable with half yearly rests. It is submitted that through inadvertence the Court has omitted to mention that interests is payable with half yearly rests. It was submitted that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, by revising/modifying the decree. It was submitted that the High Court overlooked the fact that the decree had been passed in pursuance of a compromise deed signed by the parties. 6. As agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decreetal amount of Rs. 12,08,806 the rate of interest will be @ 5% more than the prevalent bank rate and not less than 13½% from 1-1-1977 to 2-2-1987 = Rs. 46,59,920.83. Cost of litigation Rs. 12.50 cost of execution Rs. 10." At this stage itself it must be mentioned that along with the application for execution a statement showing interest due has also been annexed. The statement clearly indicates that interests has been calculated on half yearly basis. There is thus no substance in the submission that paragraph 7 indicates that the Appellants themselves understood that interest on half yearly basis was not granted under the decree. 8. It was submitted that if the Court were to hold that the decree was in terms of the compromise deed then the decree would be uncertain and incapable of being executed as it would be unclear whether the future interest was to be at the rate of 5% above the prevailing bank rate subject to a minimum of 13½% per annum or whether the future interest was to be at such other rate of interest as may be decided by the Corporation for similar advances from time to time. It was submitted that it would be unclear and uncertain as to what wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had granted interest till payment. The High Court held that therefore future interest was payable and allowed execution even for future interest. This Court held that the reasoning of the High Court would normally have been faultless. In other words this Court held that when a decree is in terms of award (or some other document like a compromise deed) the terms of that award/document have to be looked that to see what is provided in the decree. However on facts of that case this Court held that in the earlier application, under section 114 Civil Procedure Code, it had already been held that the Court had refused future interest. This Court held that once future interest had been refused and no appeal had been filed against that Order, subsequently future interest could not have been granted. 12. Reliance was also placed on the case of Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises [1999] 1 SCC 558. In this case the judgment debtor challenged the decree, when it was before the executing Court, on the ground that the award on which the decree was based was a nullity. It was submitted that the award had been filed in Court by the arbitrator 4 years after it was....