Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 9 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Hindustan Construction Corporation vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 24 May, 2002
13 Therefore, the amounts deposited by respondent under the orders of
this Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as payments as
envisaged in Order 21 Rule 1 of CPC and as such the judgment debt. As per
Order 21 Rule 1 of CPC, the modes of payment of a money decree are : (a)
by depositing into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or send
to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b) out of Court,
to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any
other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; and (c) otherwise as
the Court, which made the decree, directs. A deposit of any amount by a
judgment debtor in the Court to purchase peace by way of stay of execution
or to show bonafides for preventing an order of winding up is not a payment
of decretal amount in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 of CPC which prescribes
specific modes for the satisfaction of a money decree.
14 The payment made by the decree holder under Rule 1 of Order 21 of
Shraddha Talekar PS 16/21
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:26:39 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 22/12/2017
17 901.chs.76.2013 exal.263.2012.doc
CPC and a deposit made by the judgment debtor in Court for obtaining stay
of execution of decree are altogether different courses adopted by the
judgment debtor. Payment under Order 21 Rule 1 of CPC satisfies a decree
holder whereas, a deposit in the Court to avoid execution keeps the amount
beyond the reach of the decree holder and leaves him waiting for its release.
The deposit of the decretal amount or any amount as part of the Award by a
judgment debtor as a condition for obtaining stay of the execution of the
decree cannot be treated at par as payment to the decree holder. The
rationale behind this view is that a judgment debtor who files an Appeal to
challenge a decree or an award and applies for stay of execution pending
disposal of his appeal seeks to avoid payment of decretal amount to the
decree holder and as such, upon getting stay of execution, even on deposit
of decretal amount or non-remittance of deposited amount, succeeds in
preventing payment of decretal amount to decree holder. I find support in
the judgment of Hindustan Construction Corpn. (supra).
15 Further, nothing prevented respondent to apply to the Court or to
apply to the Reserve Bank of India to permit them to open a dollar account
or to have the rupees deposited converted into dollars and invested by the
Prothonotary and Senior Master in a special dollar account or remit the
award amount into an escrow account in claimant's country, i.e., Hongkong,
Shraddha Talekar PS 17/21
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 00:26:39 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 22/12/2017
18 901.chs.76.2013 exal.263.2012.doc
to be released if ordered by this Court.
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Islamic Investment Company vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 22 March, 2002
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Islamic
Investment Company (supra) read as under :-
Forasol vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission (And Vice ... on 25 October, 1983
20. Total - 12907.13 -12387.52
10 Shri Mishra relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Forasol Vs.
Oil & Natural Gas Commission3 to submit that in an action to recover an
amount payable in a foreign currency, one of the dates for selection by the
Court as the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange at which the foreign
currency amount has to be converted is the date when the decretal amount is
paid or realized. Shri Mishra submitted that since respondent has deposited
from time to time the decretal amount with the Prothonotary and Senior
Master, the date on which those amounts were deposited will be the proper
date for fixing the rate of exchange and it is immaterial when claimant got
the money in their bank accounts.