Delhi High Court - Orders
Aimil Ltd vs Satinder Gulati on 23 May, 2022
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~3 (Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 204/2019
AIMIL LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Danish A. Chowdhury and
Mr. Sumit Singh, Adv.
versus
SATINDER GULATI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 23.05.2022 CM 23957/2022 (Order XXIV of the CPC) in RFA 204/2019
1. By order dated 5th January, 2022, a coordinate Bench of this Court had in CM 444/2022, recorded the undertaking of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant would deposit the complete decretal amount, computed as on 5th January, 2022, within a period of eight weeks from the said date, as well as the statement of Mr. Pardeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, to the effect that, on such deposit, he would not press execution proceedings instituted by his client against the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal.
2. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the appellant, seeks permission to deposit an amount of ₹ 97,38,977/- which, according to him, represents the decretal amount, with the Registry of this Court, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI RFA 204/2019 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:24.05.2022 16:56:29 within 24 hours, and for condonation of the delay in making the said deposit.
3. Para 76 of the impugned judgment and decree reads thus:
"76. In view of my findings on all the issues as above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of ₹ 87,500/- alongwith yearly compound interest @16% per annum from 01-04-1990 till the same is paid to or recovered by the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff's is also decreed in respect of superannuation fund and therefore, defendant no. 1- company is directed to pay the plaintiff's superannuation fund with upto date interest lying in his account being maintained by it. Cost of the suit also awarded. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be cosigned to the record room after necessary compliance."
4. Mr. Pardeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, while not disputing that the aforesaid amount, which Mr. Chowdhury ₹ 87,500/ undertakes to deposit, does represent - alongwith yearly compound interest from 1st April, 1990 till today, contends that, however, this does not represent the entire decretal amount, as the judgment also contains a direction to the respondent to pay the respondent's superannuation fund with upto date interest lying in the respondent's superannuation account maintained by the appellant.
5. As to whether this payment would also constitute part of the decretal amount is, in my view, questionable. The payment having been directed to have been made into the superannuation fund of the respondent, prima facie, the direction of this Court in the order dated 5th January, 2022 to deposit the decretal amount with this Court would not cover the said amount.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI RFA 204/2019 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:24.05.2022 16:56:296. The deposit that Mr. Chowdhury undertakes to make thus would, in my view, therefore, amount to compliance with the directions contained in the aforesaid order dated 5th January, 2022 passed by this Court.
7. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in making the aforesaid deposit is condoned.
8. As a result, pending disposal of this appeal, there shall be a stay of execution proceedings initiated by the respondent.
9. The application stands disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J MAY 23, 2022 r.bararia Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI RFA 204/2019 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:24.05.2022 16:56:29