Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 18.4.2009, Annexure P4, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula in execution petition arising out of award dated 20.12.2001.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a dispute arose between the parties, which were referred to sole Arbitrator as per the agreement. The Arbitrator passed the award dated 20.12.2001. Objection petition filed against the said award was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide judgment dated 17.4.2004. Decree -holder filed execution petition, during pendency of which judgment debtor deposited a cheque for Rs. 3,77,312/ -dated 19.12.2006 on 23.12.2006 in the name of M/s M.N. Conductors Private Limited. However, later on it was alleged that the cheque was issued in the wrong name and hence, another cheque was given to decree -holder in the correct name on 12.5.2007. An application was filed by decree -holder for claiming interest on the amount of cheque from the date of previous cheque which was issued in the wrong name till the date of payment. A sum of Rs. 1,09,165/ -has also been sought by Respondent -decree holder as an amount of income tax deducted at source by Petitioner -judgment debtor.
(3.) LEARNED Additional District Judge, Panchkula, allowed the said application by observing as under : 8. In this case, lapse was not attributed to the DH. The JD should have been vigilant while issuing the cheque. The cheque should have been issued in the correct name. Similarly, income tax was not payable @32% per annum on the decrial amount because this amount was not the income but was price of the goods supplied by the DH to the JD. No amount has been returned by the JD on account of security deposit. 9. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, I hold that the JD did not deposit due amount and issued the cheque in the name of wrong person. The JD also deducted income tax wrongly. The DH cannot be allowed to suffer on account of lapse on the part of the JD. Resultantly, I direct the JD to refund Rs. 1,09,155/ -and security amount together with interest @ 18% per annum. Further I direct the JD to pay interest upto 12.5.2008 i.e., the date of giving cheque to the DH @ 18% per annum as allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, while dismissing the objection petition.;