Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The applications were filed for appropriate orders. This Commission by orders dated       20/03/09 directed the DRO (District Recovery Officer) Panaji to attach four properties more particularly described in para 6 of order dated 20/03/09 to recover an amount of Rs. 5,85,063/- in EA No. 9/04 and Rs. 50,37,255/- in EA No. 8/04. The applications are silent on compound interest though the statements show that it was calculated on compounding basis.

10. Thereafter, applications came to be filed on behalf of the D.Hs under section 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 and objections to the same were disposed off by the order of this Commission dated 21/02/12. This Order has been upheld by the National Commission. In disposing off the said objections taken on behalf of the J.D Company and/or its Directors, this Commission had directed that the J.D. Company should atleast make part payment to all the named creditors in the complaints as per offer made on behalf of the J.D. Company on 20/12/11 i.e pay 100% of the amount invested with 10% simple interest, which order, according to Shri. S. Samant, the Lr. Advocate on behalf of the J.D. Company, has been complied with and not only that Shri. S. Samant has also made a statement that all the creditors of the J.D. Company have been paid the amount due to them on the certificates held by them with compound interest till the date of the decree and simple interest at the rate of 9% till the date of payment, though the said D.Hs were not entitled for the same in terms of the orders/decrees passed by this Commission, as confirmed by the National Commission. Shri. S. Samant submits that the said payment has been made by the J.D. Company out of their moral responsibility, though the DHs were not entitled to the same in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 34, CPC, 1908. Shri. S. Samant, Lr. Advocate has also submitted that the J.D. Company has also paid the creditors the amount due on the debentures, the claim regarding which was not       entertained by this Commission in orders/decrees dated 28/07/04. Shri. S. Samant has further submitted that the J.D. Company has now paid to the named creditors an amount which is more than shown on the recovery certificates issued by this Commission consequent to orders dated 20/03/09 and therefore Lr. Advocate submits that the recovery certificates need to be recalled unexecuted. Shri. S. Samant has also submitted that the cost of Rs. 10,000/- ordered to be paid by this Commission would be paid in the name of the Creditors Association and as far as the costs are concerned, ordered to be paid by the National Commission, Lr. Advocate submits, the same need not be paid because the J.D. Company has paid 9% interest from the date of the decree untill payment for which the D.Hs were otherwise not entitled to and therefore the cost of Rs. 1000/- to each of the creditors can be adjusted against the sum so paid. Shri. S. Samant has also submitted that both the properties which have been attached and which have been referred to in clause (ii) and (iii) of para 6 of this Commissions order dated 20/03/09 belong to the J.D. Company (and not to Manipal Finance Corporation) though the office of the latter Company is functioning from on the 1st floor of the property more particularly described under (iii) of para 6 of Order dated 20/03/09.

15. On the other hand, it is submitted by Shri. S. Samant that the orders/decrees of this Commission dated 28/07/04 only directed payment of Rs. 87,33,000/- and Rs. 20,30,800/- alongwith interest at the specified rate. Shri. Samant submits that the D.Hs were not entitled to any compounded rate of interest and yet the J.D. Company have paid to the D.Hs compounded rate of interest till the date of decree. Lr. Advocate further submits that the orders/decrees dated 28/07/04 are absolutely silent as regards payment of interest from the date of the decree and therefore in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 34 CPC the D.Hs are deemed to have been refused any interest from the date of the decree and yet the J.D. Company have paid to the D.Hs simple interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the decree untill       payment which they were not entitled to in terms of sub section (2) of Section 34, CPC. Shri. Samant further submits that no sanctity could be attached to the calculations submitted by the D.Hs before passing orders dated 20/03/09 since it was not ever held by this Commission that the amount submitted by the D.Hs was the amount due to be paid by the J.D. Company to the D.Hs. Shri. Samant has also submitted that in the absence of any provision as regards grant of interest in CP Act 1986, the provisions of Section 34 CPC, 1908 are required to be followed.

17.2. Admittedly, the orders/decrees of this Commission dated 28/07/04 did not award to the D.Hs any compound interest nor award any interest at all from the date of the order/decree till payment and yet the D.Hs have been paid compound interest by the J.D. Company up to the date of the order/decree and 9% simple interest from the date of the decree untill payment, payments which the D.Hs were not otherwise entitled to in terms of law as well as order/decrees dated 28/07/04 of this Commission. That the executing Court cannot go       behind or beyond the decree is a well settled proposition of law so as to require any authority to support it and if any authority is required at all to support such a proposition, we may refer to Hiralal Patni v/s. Sri Kali Nath, AIR 1962 SC 199. We may also refer to the decision of Yodao vs. Anukavi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (1) CPR 230) wherein it has been held that the executing Court cannot go beyond and behind basic order which is put to execution. An executing Court must take the decree according to its tenor and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts.

Untill it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties. An executing Court can go behind the decree if it is only a nullity or without inherent jurisdiction. Not otherwise.

17.3. We have seen on one of the certificates an endorsement which says that interest will be paid quarterly. That does not mean that the interest would have been paid with quarterly rests or compounded.

Some of the certificates do show what was the maturity value which was payable but it is nobodys case that this maturity value payable was calculated by compounding interest either on monthly, quarterly or six monthly basis. No D.H. has come with such a case. The D.Hs did give calculations/statements by calculating interest either monthly or quarterly. However, it is significant to note that neither in the applications dated 26/5/08 nor in applications dated 5/12/08 there is a mention that what is claimed is calculated on compound basis. Likewise, there is no whisper in the said order dated 23/02/09 that the DHs were entitled to interest compounded quarterly. In the absence of any statement in the applications that interest was calculated on compounding basis and in the absence of any finding to that effect by the Commission in order dated 20/3/09, it cannot be said that the       claim of some of the creditors was accepted by the Commission for payment of interest on compounding basis. We may refer to Abdulla vs. Smt. Shyana Devi (AIR 2007 NOC Allah 2106) wherein it has been held that an executing Court has no jurisdiction to direct payment of interest when decree is silent about it. If the Commission had not granted interest on compounding basis in the final order/decree such interest could not be granted by the Commission at the time of execution. Moreover, we must keep in mind that we are executing the final order/decree dated 28/07/04 and not order dated 20/03/09, which are otherwise without jurisdiction as held in Abdulla (supra). Even for a moment their argument is accepted, then the DHs would not be entitled to compound interest beyond 30/11/08 but we hasten to add that the Commission in the final orders/decrees had not awarded any compound interest to the D.Hs and as such this Commission as an executing Court could not have granted to the D.Hs compound interest. An executing Court is required to execute the decree as it is and not to add to or subtract anything from it. In our view, the D.Hs therefore are not entitled to any balance amount calculated on compound interest either quarterly, or six monthly, till the date of payment, as claimed by them. This they are not entitled to by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 34, CPC. Any interest not granted, is deemed to have been refused to them. Yet the D,Hs have been paid compound interest till the date of decree and simple interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the decree untill payment. The D.Hs, in case they were aggrieved by orders/decrees of this Commission, ought to have filed an appeal therefrom. What is sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander. The D.Hs now cannot contend that the argument of the J.D Company on that score looks absurd. It is not. It is in accordance with law. What follows from the above is that the D.Hs are not entitled to       compound interest as claimed by them. The D.Hs have been paid, as stated on behalf of the J.D Company, compound interest till the date of the decree and thereafter simple interest at the rate of 9%, untill payment, which they were otherwise not entitled to, in terms of final orders/decrees dated 28/07/04 r/w 34(2) CPC.