Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, KAKINADA REP. BY DISTRICT MANAGER versus YARLAGADDA NARAYANA APPARAO AND ORS.

Decided
17 September 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 600 · 2008 INSC 1051

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 601, margin A

2

Challenge in these appeals is to. the judgment of the Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allow- Civil Revision Petition Nos.5048 and 5088 of 2001, filed present respondent no.1 in each case. In the civil revipetition itwas indi<'.ated that th_e proforma respondents appeals were not necessary parties. The basic dispute liability to interest ori the amount envisaged under 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the conveniently called "solatium". The High Court allowed the revision petitions being of the view that the decision of this Prem Nath Kapur arid Anr. National Ferlilizer Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. (1996 (2) sec 71) was overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder V. Union of India sec 211) .

p. 601, margin A

3

Mr. Amrendra Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, subthat both Prem Nath's case (supra) and Sunder's case were considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court Gurpreet Singh Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457). It was that view in Prem Nath's case (supra)was stated one in the said case. Therefore, the view of the High cannot be maintained.

p. 601, margin D

4

In response, learned counsel for the respondent subthat the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any warrant interference.

p. 601, margin E

5

In Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) this Court observed, as follows: Thi.ls, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential ratio jn Prem Nath Kapur (1996 (2) SCC 71) on appropriation being at different stages is justified though a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardeedecree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the same the general principle of appropriation, first towards towards costs and then towards the principal, course, the deposit is indicated to be towards by the judgment-debtor while making the intimating the decree-holder of his intention. We, the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect appropriation. 54. One other question also was sought to be raised and this Bench though not referred to it. that the question arises in various cases courts all over the country, we permitted the address us on that question. That question is light of the decision in Sunder (2001 (7) awardee/decree-holder would be entitled interest on solatium in execution though it is not granted by the decree. It is well settled that an cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, interest on solatium had been made and the negatived either expressly or by necessary the judgment or decree of the Reference appellate court, the execution court will necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium Sunder on the ground that the execution court behind the decree. But if the award of the Court or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or claim had not been made and rejected or impliedly by the Reference Court or the and merely interest on compensation is it would be open to the execution court to of Sunder and say that the compensation includes solatium and in such an event interest amount could be directed to be deposited in Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest can be claimed only in pending executions closed executions and the execution court will permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder (19-9-2001) and not for any prior A period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree• holder. ihis we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the 1~ Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of B litigation on this question."

pp. 601–603, margin F

6

In view of what has been stated above, it would be appropriate for the High Court to consider the matter afresh in view of the aforesaid quoted observations of this Court. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consider- C ation.

p. 603

7

The appeals are disposed of without any order as to costs. D.G. , Appeal disposed of. D

p. 603