IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 2980 of 2000(D)
1. STATE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MATHAI JOSEPH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/01/2011
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000
.............................................
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the
Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thodupuzha in E.A.No.92/1997
in E.P.No.195/1989 in LAR.No.77/1982. By an order the
executing court has stated that “the counsel has already
calculated for a balance of Rs.88,159.13 with interest on
25.11.1999. Hence the petition is dismissed”. It was an
application which was filed for determination of the amount
by the Government. The questions that arise for
determination in the revision are (1) whether the claimant is
entitled to get interest on solatium and (2) whether the
amount claimed is correct or not.
2. At the outset I may like to say that both these
questions are interlinked. The entitlement for interest on
solatium has been laid down in Sunder v. Union of India
reported in (2001 (3) KLT 489). In para 28 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “hence the person entitled to the
compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the
: 2 :
C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000
aggregate amount including solatium”. Subsequently the
matter again came up for consideration before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in
Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457) and
the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“15. Order 21 Rule 1 provides the
modes of paying money under a decree. It
stipulates that all monies payable under a
decree shall be paid: (a) by deposit into the
Court whose duty it is to execute the decree ,
or (b) out of Court, to the decree-holder in
the manner provided, or (c) otherwise, as the
Court which made the decree directs. Sub-
rule (2) provides that where a payment is
made by deposit into the Court or as directed
in the decree, the judgment-debtor shall give
notice thereof to the decree-holder either
through the Court or directly to him by
registered post acknowledgment due. On any
amount paid by way of deposit into the Court
or as directed under the decree, interest, if
any, shall cease to run from the date of the
service of the notice referred to in sub-rule
(2). Thus, Order 21 Rule 1 after its
amendment in the year 1976 also
contemplates the deposit of the decree
amount into Court and the giving of notice
thereof to the decree-holder and provides
further for cessation of interest from the date
of notice to the decree-holder of such deposit”.
3. A reading of the above said paragraph would revel
: 3 :
C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000
that in a case where solatium has been refused by the court
and it has become final, the claimant will not be entitled to
get any interest on solatium. Secondly when orders of the
court are silent about the granting of solatium, it is
permissible for the executing court to grant solatium, but it
was held that in such cases it can be granted only from the
date of the judgment in Sunder Singh case i.e., on
19.9.2001. So in a case where the court has granted
interest on solatium by its award, the entitlement is as
ordered and it is not restricted from the date of 19.9.2001.
So this is a matter the court has to look into for the reason
that this Court is not having a copy of the award regarding
grant of interest on solatium on the original side. When it is
worked out and if it is found that there is entitlement,
necessarily the calculation done by the applicant has to be
considered and found whether the calculation is correct.
So depends upon calculation regarding the interest on
solatium one can arrive at a correct amount that is due. It
is only on that basis the Government has challenged the
correctness of the amount. So in the light of the principles
: 4 :
C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000
laid down in Sunder and Gurpreet cases the executing
court is directed to consider interest on solatium and then
permit the parties to file statement and find out correctness
of the amount and direct the Government if any amount is
further due, deposit it within a stipulated time. Parties are
directed to appear before the executing court on 16.2.2001.
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
: 5 :
C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
…………………………………….
C.R.P.NO.2980 OF 2000
………………………………………
5th January, 2011.
O R D E R
