Allowed

Mahipal v. Santra & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2019CR/151/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the High Court allowed the claim for interest on a deposit of 9,25,000 made by an auction purchaser. The court held that since the fault lies with the judgment debtor who failed to comply, the purchaser is entitled to compensation. Interest at 9% p.a. was ordered till realisation.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 9% per annum on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till realization, or 12% per annum if payment is not made within two months.

Mahipal Vs Santra & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.01.23 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1

¶2

CR-151-2017 (O&M)

¶3

226

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CR-151-2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.01.2019

Mahipal

... Petitioner

Versus

Santra and others

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶12

Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate for the respondent

¶14

¶15

AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

The short point involved in the present revision petition is that in pursuance to the money decree, third party rights of an auction purchaser were created, who had deposited a sum of ` 9,25,000/-, but the sale was not confirmed as the judgment debtor, during the interregnum satisfied the decree.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application was filed for awarding the interest on the amount deposited on 05.07.2014, which has erroneously been dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents-judgment debtor submitted that once the sale has not been confirmed by the Courts below, no right accrued in favour of the petitioner-auction purchaser.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is some force in the submissions of

¶20

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.01.23 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2

¶21

CR-151-2017 (O&M)

¶22

Mr. Yadav, for, third party rights were created without fault of the petitioner-auction purchaser, who participated in the auction in pursuance to the promulgation of auction notice seeking recovery of dues for complying with the money decree. Had the judgment debtor complied with the same, this situation would not occur. It is on account of his own fault. In such circumstances, anomalous situation had occurred. The petitioner-auction purchaser is required to be compensated. Accordingly, the amount of ` 9,25,000/- deposited by the petitioner, on 05.07.2014, from the date of the deposit till its realization, shall entail the interest @ 9% per annum and in case the judgment debtor fails to deposit or pay the amount to the auction purchaser/petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order, then the interest shall be @ 12% per annum.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is

¶24

allowed.

¶25

16.01.2019 ( AMIT RAWAL ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No

Mahipal v. Santra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal v. Santra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joga Singh Vs Avtar Singh Kalsi

Ram Chand Vs Udai Singh etc.

Udai Singh Vs Ram Chand

Avtar Singh Vs Pritam Dass

Kuldeep Singh Vs Gian Kaur

Harjit Kaur Vs Kabal Singh