Executing courts must verify deposits against the decree before ordering payment of an alleged balance.

The trial court initially directed the petitioner to pay the respondent 50% back wages; the appellate court enhanced the award to 100%.

During the petitioner’s Second Appeal, the High Court ordered it to deposit the entire amount payable under the decree within one month, upon which execution of the decree was stayed.

The petitioner asserted that it deposited ₹4,30,780, representing 100% of the back wages, while the respondent claimed that only 50% had been deposited.

In Execution Application No. 1 of 2014, the executing court directed the petitioner to deposit a further ₹4,36,948. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227, contending that the executing court had not properly considered the deposit already made.

1. Whether the executing court erred in directing payment of a further amount without examining whether the petitioner’s deposit of ₹4,30,780 represented 100% of the back wages due under the decree?

2. Whether the execution application should be remitted for fresh determination of the respondent’s claim after considering the petitioner’s deposit and the parties’ respective calculations and supporting documents?

Article 227 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts; the Court invoked that jurisdiction to interfere with the executing court’s order where a material aspect of the execution claim had not been examined.

The judgment cited no specific precedent or additional statutory rule.

It directed the executing court to determine the claim afresh after considering the parties’ respective claims and supporting documents.

The central dispute was whether the ₹4,30,780 deposited by the petitioner covered 100% or only 50% of the back wages.

Although the respondent maintained that the deposit covered only 50%, the executing court had not examined whether that amount represented the full back wages payable, and the record did not establish the respondent’s asserted calculation.

The Court therefore found the order requiring a further deposit premature and set it aside, while leaving the amount actually due for determination by the executing court on the parties’ evidence and calculations.

The High Court quashed the executing court’s order dated 17 February 2016 and restored the execution application to its original file, directing the executing court to decide the respondent’s claim afresh after considering the petitioner’s defence of full payment and the parties’ supporting documents.

The matter was to be decided preferably within two months, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations; no order as to costs was made.