सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने न्यायालय जमा पर मानक कानून की मांग की, कानून आयोग से समीक्षा का आह्वान

Supreme Court Recommends Law To Govern Court Deposits, Urges Law Commission To Examine

The Court flagged the non-uniform procedure followed by various courts and tribunals in handling deposits made before them.

The Supreme Court has urged the Law Commission of India to examine the lack of uniformity in how money deposited before Courts and Tribunals is administered, invested, and released.

“We are of the opinion that it is necessary to evolve and formulate a suitable legislation on the subject.”, observed a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe while hearing an appeal against the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had upheld the award-debtor's liability to pay interest on the deposit of an arbitral award amount from the date of passing of the arbitral award until the deposited amount was transferred to the award-holder.

The Court noted significant differences among Courts and Tribunals regarding the percentage of the award or decree required to be deposited, the bank or financial institution where the money is kept, the investment instrument, interest earned, and the withdrawal, renewal, and reinvestment of deposits.

The judgment noted that different High Courts have adopted different mechanisms for dealing with deposited amounts.

The Delhi High Court requires money deposited to be held by its Registry in fixed deposits, while the Allahabad High Court provides for deposits with the State Bank of India. The Bombay High Court has adopted arrangements involving the Prothonotary and Senior Master, with subsequent judicial directions concerning fixed deposits in nationalised banks.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed executing courts to place deposited monies in fixed deposits with nationalised banks. Deposits before the Supreme Court are maintained through government deposits with nationalised banks, while the Calcutta and Madras High Courts have mechanisms involving the Reserve Bank of India.

“We have…noticed the asymmetry that exists in our country with regard to the method and manner by which deposits are directed to be made before the Courts/Tribunals when appeals are being considered. We have requested the Law Commission of India to examine the issues which we have highlighted in this judgment and in the process, the Law Commission has also been requested to consider the laws which other countries have enacted and to consult the Reserve Bank of India, Ministry of Finance and also the Nodal Ministry of Law and Justice.”, the Court observed.

According to the Court, such asymmetry results in similarly situated litigants receiving different treatment depending on the forum and also generates further litigation concerning investment, accounting and interest.

The Court emphasised the time value of money attached to the deposits, observing that there must be clarity and uniformity in the manner in which court deposits are handled.

It suggested that standardisation could potentially be achieved through a common platform under which monies deposited before different Courts and Tribunals are pooled and invested in an appropriate financial instrument.

“In order to preserve the economic integrity of any deposit and to provide interest, there must be clarity and uniformity in the method and manner in which the deposit itself is handled. Lack of standardisation in the process by which sums deposited into the court are to be handled undermines this essential underlying principle of the time value of money as well as the accrual of interest in a certain and clear manner…This practice of standardisation must take place through a common platform wherein monies deposited in different Courts/Tribunals are pooled into one unified scheme and then accordingly put into the most beneficial financial instrument for the litigating parties. This common platform will not only create certainty in the interest rates and increase the ease of accessibility for litigants but will also ease the burden on Courts/Tribunals regarding how this money deposited is to be invested and dealt with.”, the Court observed.

The Court also referred to its earlier decision in K.L. Suneja v. Dr. (Mrs.) Manjeet Kaur Monga 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68, where the need for uniform guidelines concerning money deposited with court registries had been highlighted. In KL Suneja, the Court emphasized that “all courts and judicial forums should frame guidelines providing that where the amounts are deposited with the office/registry of the court/tribunal, such amounts should mandatorily be deposited in a bank or some financial institution to ensure that no loss is caused in the future. It was further held that the guidelines should be embodied in the form of appropriate rules, or regulations of each court, tribunal, commission, authority, agency etc., exercising adjudicatory power.”

As a result, with a need to establish a more consistent approach to administration of court deposits, the Court requested the Law Commission to examine the issues identified in the judgment, including the laws adopted by other countries.

The Registry was directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India, Governor of the RBI, and Secretaries of the Ministries of Finance and Law and Justice

Cause Title: NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS NATIONAL AGRO SEED CORPORATION (INDIA)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 958

Powered by Nyaya 247 News