Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Deepak Electric And Trading Co. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 26 May, 2004

New India Mosaic & Marble Co. P. Ltd. vs Bhandari Builders Pvt. Ltd. on 8 March, 2013

16. Mr. Pais has relied on the decision in the BHEL case as well as the judgment of this Court in Deepak Electric & Trading Co. v. Union of India 111 (2004) DLT 788. He does not dispute the proposition that the payment made by the JD during the pendency of the execution proceedings has to be adjusted first towards the interest and the cost and thereafter towards the payment of the principal amount, subject to any agreement between the parties. He refers to Order XXIV Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') to urge that the interest would cease to run on the amount for which deposit was made. Upon such deposit being made, interest on that part of the principal sum that has been paid with the deposit of the amount would cease to run thereafter. He emphasizes that where the deposit made does not fully cover the total principal amount + interest that is due on the date of the deposit, then the interest will continue to run on the balance principal amount till the date of the actual payment.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S. Bhandari Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs New India Mosaic And Marble Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 21 November, 2013

It was argued furthermore that the reliance placed upon the judgment in Deepak Electric and Trading Co. v. Union of India, 111 (2004) DLT 788, was misplaced given the facts of this case. Elaborating on this argument, it was contended that a proper application of the relevant principles would indicate that as on 25.04.2003, the unadjusted principal payable to the decree holder was `2,65,000/- of which the interest at 12% from 04.11.1995 to 25.04.2003 was `2,37,864/-. If these two amounts were added to the sums lying in Court, i.e. `9,40,000/-, the total was `14,42,864/-, which was the only sum due and payable. It was submitted that concededly the decree holder withdrew `15,10,154/- on 25.04.2003 EFA (OS) 12/2013 Page 3 pursuant to the order of 11.02.2003. In the circumstances, the decree holder was liable to pay back `67,290/- and the question of the judgment debtor paying any further amounts did not arise.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1