Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Notice Requirement for Interest Cessation in Money Decree Execution: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, through a judgment delivered on August 9, 2023, highlighted the importance of providing notice to the decree-holder about the deposit of the decretal amount in the context of execution of a money decree. The judgment, authored by Justice Namit Kumar, underscores the impact of violating the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and its effect on the cessation of interest on the deposited amount.

The case (CR-449 of 2019) pertains to a claim petition for compensation filed by a petitioner and her son under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court's observation emphasized that when the judgment-debtor deposits the decretal amount in court, it is crucial to provide notice to the decree-holder about the deposit. The notice requirement signifies that interest will cease to run on the deposit and notice or on tendering the amount outside the court, effectively informing the decree-holder that the amount is available for withdrawal.

Justice Namit Kumar, in the judgment, drew upon the principles established in previous cases, particularly citing the Hon’ble Supreme Court's ruling in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Poonam Pahwa. The judgment underscored that the failure to provide notice to the decree-holder could lead to unreasonable delays in releasing the awarded amount and result in a loss of interest to the decree-holder.

The Court held that in the present case, where no notice of the deposit of the awarded amount was provided to the petitioner, the principles of Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC were violated. As a consequence, the Court set aside the impugned order allowing the refund of interest to the respondent Insurance Company. The Court allowed the case and directed that if the refunded interest amount had already been given, it should be deposited with the Tribunal. The decree-holder (petitioner) was to be informed of this deposit in accordance with Order 21 Rule 1 CPC.

This judgment reiterates the significance of procedural compliance and the imperative role that notice plays in ensuring fair execution of money decrees. The ruling carries forward the legal precedent, ensuring that the decree-holder's right to interest is safeguarded through proper notification in cases of deposit of decretal amounts.

Date of Decision: 09.08.2023

Suresh Devi    vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And others     

Latest Legal News