The appellant filed a civil suit in the High Court for
specific performance of a contract to sell the suit property
by the respondents to her. The High Court held the appellant
liable to discharge the mortgage and directed her to deposit
in Court a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs with interest for the pur-
pose. The appellant paid the amount direct to the mortgagee,
which the High Court refused to accept as due compliance
with its decree.
The appellant preferred appeals to this Court, which
were disposed of on 29th November, 1979 with the direction
that the appellant was to deposit within six months from the
date of the order, the entire sum of Rs.3.15 lakhs together
with interest.
Purporting to comply with the aforesaid order of this
Court, appellant deposited a sum of Rs.2,42,822.19 on 11
April, 7980 and filed two Civil Misc. Petitions in the High
Court for a declaration that the payment was in compliance
with the order of this Court and claimed as set off of the
amount of Rs.5,96,687.19 paid by her earlier to the South
Indian Bank, which she was entitled to recover from the
respondent.
The time limit fixed for fulfilling the two conditions
set out in this Court's order dated 29th November, 1979
having fallen on 29th May, 1980 and the High Court not
having passed orders on the appellant's two CMP's the appel-
lant paid into the High Court a sum of Rs.6.02 lakhs on 29th
May, 1980 by cheque purporting to comply with the first
condition of this Court's order.
820
The High Court dismissed the appellant's CMP and refused
to grant the declaration that the appellant had complied
with the order of this Court dated 29th November. 1979, on
the ground that the appellant was bound to comply with the
Original Side Rules of the High Court which prescribed the
procedure to be followed in depositing money into Court
particularly Order XXXI Rules 1 to 6 which aimed at securing
the deposit of the money in the Reserve Bank of India to the
credit of a particular proceeding, on or before the speci-
fied date.
In the appeal to this Court, on the question; whether
payment made by the appellant on 29th May, 1980 by cheque of
the amount of Rs.6.02 lakhs together with the amount depos-
ited earlier on 11th May, 1980 was in due compliance with
this Court's order dated 29th November, 1979.
Allowing the Appeal and setting aside the order of the
High Court, this Court
HELD: 1. Payment by cheque is an ordinary incident of
present day life, whether commercial or private, and unless
it is specifically mentioned that payment must be in cash
there is no reason why payment by cheque should not be taken
to be due payment if the cheque is subsequently encashed in
the ordinary course. [823D-E]
In the instant case, there is nothing in the order of
this Court providing that the deposit by the appellant was
to be in cash. The terms of the order dated November 29,
1979 are conclusive in this respect and it is the intent of
that order which will determine whether payment by cheque
within the period stipulated in that order was excluded as a
mode in satisfaction of the terms of that order. The time
for payment of governed by the order of this Court. [823E-F]
2. Payment on the cheque being honoured and encashed
relates back to the date of the receipt of the cheque, and
in law the date of payment is the date of delivery of the
cheque. [823F]
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay v.
Messrs Ogale Glass Works Ltd. Ogale Wadi, A.I.R. 1954 S.C.
429 referred to.
In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that
the cheque was not honoured in due course and that the Bank
had at any time declined to honour it for want of funds in
the ordinary cause. [823G]
821
3. The conditions set forth in the order of this Court
dated 29th November, 1979 have been complied with by the
appellant substantially and she is entitled to the benefit
of that order. [824C-D]
