State Of Karnataka & Anr vs G R Nadagouda (Dead) By Lrs & Anr

by the High Court in the impugned Judgment, to

recount the various developments and the manner in

which the present position has arisen as now it is

confined within a very narrow ambit. From the

arguments advanced by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned

1 counsel appearing on behalf of State of Karnataka,

the appellant herein, we only need to consider the

penultimate directions in the impugned order.

Accordingly, for the proper disposal of the present

appeals, that portion of the impugned Judgment of

the High Court may be reproduced as under :-

"The State authorities are accordingly directed to deposit the amount in question in the trial Court within an outer limit of three months from today. The petitioners would undoubtedly be required to pay the requisite court fees on the amount in question, but the trial Court will have to take note of the fact that under normal circumstances, the Court fee is payable on the date when the suit is filed or in those of the cases, where for any reason, the Court fee is directed to be paid when the decree is passed, then, it is these two dates that have been taken into consideration. In this case, the suit was filed in the year 1955, the decree came to be passed in the year 1957 and it is therefore, on the basis of Court fees that would have been payable as on that date, that the petitioners would be liable. The Trial Court shall accordingly this factor into account. It shall be open to the petitioners to either tender the Court fee separately or to pray to the trial Court to adjust the same while

2 releasing the payments to them. It is made clear however, that if the State commits any default in depositing the amounts within the prescribed period of time, which I have deliberately kept sufficiently long, that in the event of any such default, the State shall be liable to pay interest quantified at the rate of 15% p.a. to the petitioners from the date of this order namely, 15.11.1996 upto the date on which the amount is actually tendered in Court." (Emphasis supplied)

2. Before us, the only submission that was raised

by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing

for the State of Karnataka is whether the judgment

of the High Court directing the State to pay

interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum to

the respondents from the date of its order i.e. 15th

of November, 1996 up to the date on which the

amount was actually tendered in the Court, was

justified.

3. In view of the aforesaid stand taken

by the learned counsel appearing for the

3 appellants, we need not go into the facts of these

appeals in detail nor are we concerned with any

other ground except the ground mentioned earlier.

On behalf of the appellants, Mr. Hegde contended

that in view of the nature of the claim and in view

of the fact that the State of Karnataka had

diligently pursued these litigations all through,

it was improper on the part of the High Court to

hold that the State was liable to pay interest at

the rate of 15% P.A. as the said rate of interest

if accepted and if the State is directed to pay it

to the respondents, would have the effect of nearly

tripling the decretal amount. Accordingly, it was

submitted that the rate of interest may be modified

to 6% P.A.

4. On the question of rate of interest,

we have also heard Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents, who duly

contested the submission of Mr. Hegde. According

4 to him, the High Court in its discretion was fully

justified in granting interest at the rate of 15%

P.A. from the date mentioned in the impugned

judgment. It was further submitted by Mr.

Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent, that the entire litigation carried

on by the State against the respondent was

fictitious and therefore, it was justified for the

High Court to award interest at the rate mentioned

above. Mr. Kulkarni further submitted that in view

of the admitted facts of the present case, the

question of reducing the interest from 15% to 6%

does not arise at all. Accordingly, he submitted

that the appeals shall be dismissed with exemplary

costs in favour of the respondents.

5. Having heard the learned counsel

appearing for the parties and after going through

the impugned judgment and the directions to the

State to pay interest at the rate of 15% P.A.

5 w.e.f. 15th of November, 1996, we are of the view

that the impugned judgment of the High Court may be

modified to the extent that the respondents be paid

interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum and

not 15 per cent from the date mentioned in the

impugned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly,

we dispose of these appeals with the above

modification and we further direct that in the

event, the amount, as directed above, is not paid

by the State within six months from the date of

supply of a copy of this order to it by the

respondents, the State shall be liable to pay

interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as

directed by the High Court.

6. With this modification, these appeals

are disposed of with no order as to costs.

..................J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

6 NEW DELHI ..................J. JANUARY 05,2010. [AFTAB ALAM]

7