2008 (7) TMI 593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the decree holder. The answer to the said issue depends upon whether the deposits made by the judgment debtor in the court after filing of the execution petition are to be appropriated first towards interest as contended by the decree holder or first towards the principal amount as contended by the judgment debtor. If the appropriation is towards the interest first, then the decree holder is entitled to the release of the entire sum of Rs. 1,84,904.52. However, if the appropriation is towards the principal first then the decree holder is entitled to the release of Rs. 66,578.17 only. 2. An ex parte decree dated 22nd August, 2003 was passed in favour of the decree holder for recovery of Rs. 22,64,564/- together with pendente lite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd costs only, further interest ought to stop running and as such besides the amount mentioned in the decree only the sum of Rs. 66,578.17 more was due to the decree holder towards interest till the date of deposit. Reliance in this regard is placed on Nandi Investments and Enterprises v. L.M. Saravamangala - AIR 2004 S.C. 4765. However, the said judgment after recording the submissions of the parties remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication and is of no help to the judgment debtor. The counsel for the decree holder has on the other hand placed reliance on Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 S.C.C. 457, Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., (1995) 4 S.C.C. 26 and Meghraj & Ors v. Mst. Bayabai & Ors.....