Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authrotiy v. Devendra Singh & Others - WRIT - C No. 39470 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14342 (22 August 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

      It is submitted by Sri B. Dayal assisted by Sri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that in an appeal before this court against the decree of the reference court in a land acquisition case  an interim order was passed requiring the petitioner to deposit ¼ of the decretal amount as a condition for the stay order. According to the calculation of the petitioner the ¼ of the amount comes to Rs. 38,61,557/- which was deposited whereas the executing court has determined ¼ of the amount as Rs. 41,60,506.71 paise and  therefore holding that the condition of the stay order has not been complied with called upon the petitioner to deposit the entire decretal amount and has attached the bank account of the petitioner.  It is submitted that the error committed by the executing court is that certain amounts, which the petitioner had deposited were not adjusted on the date on which the deposit was made and hence interest has not been correctly computed and further that the calculation has not been made according to the decree. It is also stated that in view of the decision  of the Supreme Court in Gurprit Singh Vs. Union of India 2007 A.L.R. 327 the interest on the additional compensation and on the solatium became payable from the date of the decision in Sunder Vs. Union of India. It is stated that subsequently the shortfall in ¼ amount as calculated by the executing court has been deposited.

   List this case after three weeks. In the meantime the respondent no.1 who is represented by S/Sri R. S. Mishra and Ratnesh Kumar Pandey may file a counter affidavit.

     Sri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 prays that at least ¼ of the amount as calculated by the executing court should be allowed to be disbursed  to the respondent no.1. Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no objection.

  In the circumstances the executing court shall allow the respondent no.1 to withdraw ¼ of the decretal amount as calculated by the executing court. In case any portion of the ¼ amount has already been paid the same shall be adjusted. The operation of the order of attachment of the bank account of the petitioner dated 13.8.2007 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.