M/S. Modern Design Group. Vs. M/S. Engineering Projects (India) Limited. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[aftab alam ; r.m. lodha, jj.] the appellant- university on march 1, 1996 issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of deputy registrar and assistant registrar by direct recruitment. the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as assistant registrar was as under:-respondent no.1, who was an employee of the university, made applications both for the posts of deputy registrar and assistant registrar. respondents 4 and 5 were placed in the select list at ranks iv and v respectively. on the basis of the select list, prepared by the selection committee, respondent nos. 4 and 5 were appointed as assistant registrars. 5. the writ petition was opposed by the university. it was, accordingly, submitted that respondent no.1 was ineligible for appointment to the post of assistant registrar. the division bench found and held that respondent no.1 was not eligible to be considered for the post of deputy registrar and, hence, rejected his case in so far that post is concerned. coming, however, to the post of assistant registrar, the division bench took the view that selection committee had not assigned any reason for putting respondent nos. 4 and 5 above respondent no.1 in the select list. no material has been produced before us to show that it is the selection committee which upon assessment of merit of the appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5, found appellant was less meritorious than the respondent nos. 4 and 5. in the first place the division bench overlooked that according to the statutory eligibility criterion only a section officer or a p.a.-cum-stenographer was eligible to be considered for appointment as assistant registrar and respondent no.1 was a head assistant. the division bench seems to have overlooked that while respondent nos. 4 and 5 were at ranks iv and v in the select list, respondent no.1 was at rank xiii and by brining him at par with respondent nos. 4 and 5, the division bench clearly ignored the claims of the seven candidates who figured in between from rank vi to xii and who were above respondent no.1.1. the remaining claim in the execution proceedings is on account of the interest claimed by the decree-holder. the decree holder says that since the award dated july 7, 2005 permitted the judgment-debtor to make payment of the principal sum awarded of rs.12.5 lakh within a period of two months from the date of the award and did not refer to any interest, the decree-holder is entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum in accordance with the mandate of section 31 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. the decree-holder has agreed to accept interest at a lower rate of 14 per cent per annum if the claim on account of interest is immediately settled. 2. as at december 1, 2009, the principal amount of rs.12.5 lakh together with interest thereon from the date of the award calculated at 14 per cent per annum amounted to rs.20,16,164.38. the parties say that in a suit where both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor herein are defendants, the plaintiff therein obtained an order of attachment in respect of a part of the amount due under the decree from the judgment-debtor.3. the parties submit that following an order passed by the city civil court in money suit no.421 of 2005, the judgment-debtor herein has made a deposit of a sum of rs.5.45 lakh. the parties also represent that such sum of rs.5.45 lakh was deposited on december 2, 2009. 4. accordingly, the decree-holder has deducted the sum of rs.5.45 lakh from the amount due till then of rs.20,16,164.38 to arrive at a figure of rs.15,71,164.38, which the decree-holder suggests that the judgment-debtor had no excuse to retain. 5. the decree-holder has calculated interest on the balance principal sum (treating the deposit of rs.5.45 lakh to have been made against the principal sum due) from december 2, 2009 to march 31, 2010 to arrive at a figure of rs.16,03,343.28 as at march 31, 2010.out of such amount, the decree-holder has given credit to the payment of the principal sum of rs.7.05 lakh (after taking into account the deposit made by the judgment-debtor) to suggest that the decree holder is entitled to a sum in excess of rs.8.98 lakh on account of interest calculated at 14 per cent per annum. 6. the decree-holder has agreed to accept a sum of rs.8.5 lakh in full and final settlement of its claim on account of interest subject to the judgment-debtor undertaking to make payment of the sum of rs.5.45 lakh and the accretion thereto in the event the city civil court order of attachment is dissolved and further subject to the sum of rs.8.5 lakh being released within three weeks from date. 7. the judgment-debtor has given an undertaking through counsel appearing on its behalf to release the money attached (together with all accretion thereto), if the order of attachment is dissolved, within three weeks from the date of removal of the order of attachment. let the matter appear four weeks hence to ascertain whether the sum of rs.8.5 lakh is received by the decree-holder from the judgment-debtor. if the payment is not received by the decree-holder by then, it will not be bound by the offer recorded herein. urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

Judgment:
1. The remaining claim in the execution proceedings is on account of the interest claimed by the decree-holder. The decree holder says that since the award dated July 7, 2005 permitted the judgment-debtor to make payment of the principal sum awarded of Rs.12.5 lakh within a period of two months from the date of the award and did not refer to any interest, the decree-holder is entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum in accordance with the mandate of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decree-holder has agreed to accept interest at a lower rate of 14 per cent per annum if the claim on account of interest is immediately settled.

2. As at December 1, 2009, the principal amount of Rs.12.5 lakh together with interest thereon from the date of the award calculated at 14 per cent per annum amounted to Rs.20,16,164.38. The parties say that in a suit where both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor herein are defendants, the plaintiff therein obtained an order of attachment in respect of a part of the amount due under the decree from the judgment-debtor.

3. The parties submit that following an order passed by the City Civil court in Money Suit No.421 of 2005, the judgment-debtor herein has made a deposit of a sum of Rs.5.45 lakh. The parties also represent that such sum of Rs.5.45 lakh was deposited on December 2, 2009.

4. Accordingly, the decree-holder has deducted the sum of Rs.5.45 lakh from the amount due till then of Rs.20,16,164.38 to arrive at a figure of Rs.15,71,164.38, which the decree-holder suggests that the judgment-debtor had no excuse to retain.

5. The decree-holder has calculated interest on the balance principal sum (treating the deposit of Rs.5.45 lakh to have been made against the principal sum due) from December 2, 2009 to March 31, 2010 to arrive at a figure of Rs.16,03,343.28 as at March 31, 2010.Out of such amount, the decree-holder has given credit to the payment of the principal sum of Rs.7.05 lakh (after taking into account the deposit made by the judgment-debtor) to suggest that the decree holder is entitled to a sum in excess of Rs.8.98 lakh on account of interest calculated at 14 per cent per annum.

6. The decree-holder has agreed to accept a sum of Rs.8.5 lakh in full and final settlement of its claim on account of interest subject to the judgment-debtor undertaking to make payment of the sum of Rs.5.45 lakh and the accretion thereto in the event the City Civil Court order of attachment is dissolved and further subject to the sum of Rs.8.5 lakh being released within three weeks from date.

7. The judgment-debtor has given an undertaking through counsel appearing on its behalf to release the money attached (together with all accretion thereto), if the order of attachment is dissolved, within three weeks from the date of removal of the order of attachment. Let the matter appear four weeks hence to ascertain whether the sum of Rs.8.5 lakh is received by the decree-holder from the judgment-debtor. If the payment is not received by the decree-holder by then, it will not be bound by the offer recorded herein. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.