6293/2010, Titled As "Rai Singh vs . Union Of India" on 4 January, 2016
"54. One other question also was sought to be
raised and answered by this Bench though not
referred to it. Considering that the question arises
in various cases pending in courts all over the
country, we permitted the counsel to address us
on that question. That question is whether in the
light of the decision in Sunder, the
awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim
interest on solatium in execution through it is not
specifically granted by the decree. It is well
settled that an execution court cannot go behind
the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on
solatium had been made and the same has been
negatived either expressly or by necessary
implication by the judgment or decree of the
Reference Court or of the appellate court, the
execution court will have necessarily to reject the
claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder on
the ground that the execution court cannot go
behind the decree. But if the award of the
Reference Court or that of the appellate court
does not specifically refer to the question of
interest on solatium or in cases where claim had
not been made and rejected either expressly or
impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate
court, and merely interest on compensation is
awarded, then it would be open to the execution
court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the
Ex. No. 246/10 Paras Ram (Through LRs) vs. UOI 7/9
compensation awarded includes solatium and in
such an event interest on the amount could be
directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise,
not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium
can be claimed only in pending executions and not
in closed executions and the execution court will
be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of
the judgment in Sunder (19-9-2001) and not for
any prior period. We also clarify that this will not
entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation
by the decree holder. This we have indicated by
way of clarification also in exercise of our power
under Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution of
India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation
on this question."