Shri Marcus R. Cardozo vs State Of Goa & Ors.

Heard Mr Desai, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr Salkar, learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

he Petitioner challenges the order dated 28.06.2012 made by the learned Executing Judge, ordering restitution under Section 144 of the CPC and requiring the Petitioner to repay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum to the Respondents.

Mr Desai submits that this is not a case where either the Arbitrator’s Award or this Court’s judgment and order dated 21.07.2009, disposing of the Appeal Under Arbitration No. 16 of 1996 had directed the Petitioner to repay the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the Respondents with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. he Award and this Court’s judgment and order dated 21.07.2009 had only reduced the compensation payable by the Government to the Petitioner from Rs.2,81,290/- to Rs.1,61,200/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with efect from 03.01.1985 thereon, till realisation of the full amount. he Government had deposited the amount of Rs.2,81,290/-pending Appeal Under Arbitration Act No. 16 of 1996 together with simple interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum from 03.01.1985 to 30.11.1994 before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Quepem, where objections were iled to make the Arbitrator’s Award the rule of the Court. his amount was withdrawn by the Petitioner herein.

Now that the State’s Appeal Under Arbitration Act No. 16 of 1996 was partly allowed and this amount was reduced from Rs.2,81,200/- to Rs.1,61,200/-, the question is whether the Executing Court, when ordering restitution under Section 144, could have insisted that even the restitution should be by directing payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

here is nothing either in the Arbitration Award or in this Court's judgment and order dated 21.07.2009, disposing of Appeal Under Arbitration Act No. 16 of 1996, which suggests that the interest at the time of restitution had to be 15% per annum simply because under the Award, the State had been directed to pay the Petitioner, some amount with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. However, if the Petitioner has already Page 3 of 6 17 December 2025 received the entire amount along with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum, then, by way of restitution the Petitioner has to bring back that amount. However, regarding the balance, it would not, in the peculiar facts of the present case, be appropriate to impose interest of 15% per annum upon the Petitioner. he interest of justice would be met, if the Petitioner is directed to pay the balance amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and not 15% per annum. hus, neither of the parties would be unjustly enriched.

To the above extent, the impugned order is hereby modiied.

he learned Counsel for the parties, in order to avoid confusion in calculations, have submitted the following agreed chart, which was, in fact, prepared as per the Farad order dated 25.06.2013, when this Court was making attempts to persuade the parties to settle this matter before the Lok Adalat or through mediation. he chart reads as follows:-

In terms of the above chart, which is agreed by both parties, the amount payable by the Petitioner comes to Rs.7,61,144/-. However, there is no dispute that the Petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.4 lakhs in this Court on 15.10.2015. hat amount is presumably invested and would have drawn some interest by now. he amount of Rs.4 lakhs along with accrued interest shall be paid to the Government.

Accordingly, from out of this amount of Rs.7,61,144/-, this amount of Rs.4 lakhs, together with interest, if any, that shall have accrued on this amount, will have to be deducted. If, after such deduction, any further amount is required to be paid by the Petitioner to the Government, the Petitioner shall pay the same, within a period of two months from the date of uploading of this order. However, if upon deduction, if the amount to be deducted exceeds Rs.7,61,144/-, then the Petitioner need not pay any additional amount. he Registry will then refund to the Petitioner any amount that exceeds the amount of Rs.7,61,144/-after paying the amount of Rs.7,61,144/- to the Government.

he Rule in this Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any cost order. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.