Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Rep. by Its Deputy Manager Smt. Sudha Ganesh) Vs. Kuppuswamy S/O Narayanappa (Since Deceased by Lrs. K. Menashi D/O Kuppuswamy, - Court Judgment
|Court||Karnataka High Court|
|Case Number||M.F.A. No. 775/2010|
|Judge|| V. Jagannathan, J.|
|Appellant||Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Rep. by Its Deputy Manager Smt. Sudha Ganesh)|
|Respondent||Kuppuswamy S/O Narayanappa (Since Deceased by Lrs. K. Menashi D/O Kuppuswamy,; K. Radha D/O Kuppuswa|
|Appellant Advocate|| M. Arun Ponappa, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate|| V.B. Siddaramaiah, Adv. for R1 and 2|
.....of status quo was not in existence as on the date of issue of delivery warrant and also on the date of delivery of possession, the decree holder was not prevented in law and rightly the decree has been executed. filing suit or miscellaneous case itself does not prevent the executing court from executing the decree. -further held, there is admittedly no dispute as to the decree granted in favour of the decree holder. it is also not in dispute that the executing court has executed sale deed in favour of the decree holder, despite the sale deed, and after the delivery of possession the executing court has passed the impugned order for redelivery of possession to the judgment debtor that to by constructing the structure, that to on an application under section 151 of c.p.c. - even in..........in decision referred to above. accordingly, the order of the commissioner is modified only in so far sis interest is concerned and interest is payable is at 7% from the date of claim application till the date of award of the commissioner and thereafter at 12% till payment is made.appeal is allowed to the above extent.
V. Jagannathan, J.
1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the short point involved for consideration, this appeal Stands disposed of finally.
2. Appellant's Counsel Shri M. Arun Ponnappa subnets that award of the W.C. Commissioner is called in question only as regards interest part of the award is concerned and interest is payable as per the Apex Court decision in Nasir's case AIR2009 SCW 3717 at 7% from the date of application till the award of the Commissioner and thereafter wards till payment is mode at 12%.
3. The above submission of the appellant's Counsel requires to be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in decision referred to above. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner is modified only in so far sis interest is concerned and interest is payable is at 7% from the date of claim application till the date of award of the commissioner and thereafter at 12% till payment is made.
Appeal is allowed to the above extent.