Delhi High Court - Orders
Unitech Ltd vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd on 1 September, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 220/2018
UNITECH LTD. ..... Decree Holder
Through: Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Advocate.
Versus
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE
NIGAM LTD. ..... Judgement Debtor
Through: Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 01.09.2022
1. By the order dated 20.07.2022, the disputes between the parties were resolved except to the extent of the rate of interest payable on the awarded amount and as to whether the amount of ₹11,29,603/- which was part of Claim No. 4 (d) and was payable by the judgment debtor to the decree holder. The relevant observations in the order dated 20.07.2022 are as follows:-
"14. Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, learned counsel for MTNL, resists the recovery of interest, even at this rate, on the ground that in terms of the judgment dated 23.11.2009, this was a matter that ought to have been agitated before the learned arbitrator in the second round. In my view, the statutory provision addresses exactly the kind of situation which has occurred in the present case, where the arbitral award is entirely silent as to interest. On the claims which were sustained by the judgment dated 23.11.2009, the net effect of the judgment of the Division Bench, is that Unitech has recovered interest @ 18% per annum. Certainly, Unitech's failure to agitate the claim for interest on the remanded claims before the learned arbitrator was at its own peril. However, having succeeded in its claims, I am of the view Signature Not Verified Digitally signed OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 220/2018 Page 1 of 3 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:02.09.2022 12:30:31 that the award holder is entitled to recovery of interest on these claims at the rate provided in Section 31(7)(b) of the Act. In fact, albeit by way of an alternative argument, MTNL has itself quantified the liability on this basis in an affidavit filed by it on 01.08.2019. The rate at which interest is calculated is 10.5% per annum. Ms. Agrawal seeks time to take instructions on this aspect. She is directed to place an affidavit on record within two weeks in the event the rate of interest is disputed.
15. There is one further issue which requires consideration. Ms. Agrawal submits that in the execution petition itself, one element of the award has inadvertently been missed out while computing the total amount due to the petitioner. This is an amount of ₹11,29,603/- which is part of claim No. 4(d) as awarded. I find from the calculation sheet attached to the aforesaid affidavit of MTNL that MTNL has also accepted its liability for the said amount. Mr. Bidhuri seeks time to take instructions on this aspect.
16. It is made clear that the only two remaining issues are with regard to the claim of ₹11,29,603/- [being the second element of claim No. 4(d)] and the rate at which the interest is liable to be awarded under Section 31 (7)(b) of the Act, in respect of the award under enforcement. Learned counsel for the parties will address on these two issues on the next date of hearing."
2. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the decree holder has not filed any affidavit as directed in paragraph 14 of the order. The rate of interest upon which the judgment debtor has calculated its liability in the affidavit filed by it on 01.08.2019 is 10.5% per annum, being the bank rate of 8.5% plus 2% as required by Section 31(7)(b) of the Act. As this rate is not disputed, the calculation submitted by the judgment debtor- Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ["MTNL"], is accepted.
3. As far as the dues under Claim No. 4 (d) to the extent of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 220/2018 Page 2 of 3 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:02.09.2022 12:30:31 ₹11,29,603/- are concerned, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, learned counsel for MTNL, accepts that this amount is payable although the amount was not mentioned in the execution petition at all.
4. MTNL has placed a calculation sheet on record by its affidavit filed on 01.08.2019. The affidavit shows that the principal amount due under the award was ₹2,29,64,241/- (inclusive of the aforesaid amount of ₹11,29,603/-). Of this amount, ₹2,18,34,638/- was deposited on 23.01.2019 and released to the decree holder. The principal amount of the claim thus stands satisfied.
5. What remains is the claim for interest on the said amount which has been quantified by the judgment debtor at ₹1,63,27,902/- and the principal amount of ₹11,29,603/-, i.e. a total sum of ₹1,74,57,505/-. Mr. Bidhuri states that the aforesaid amount will be paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder within eight weeks from today. Learned counsel for the parties accept that the award will be fully satisfied with the said payment.
6. The enforcement proceedings are, therefore, disposed of, binding the judgment debtor-MTNL to the aforesaid statement.
7. In the event, the sum of ₹1,74,57,505/- is not paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder within the aforesaid period of eight weeks, it will be open to the decree holder to seek revival of the present proceedings.
PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 'Bhupi/' Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally signed OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 220/2018 Page 3 of 3 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:02.09.2022 12:30:31