JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 2. The facts appertain to the present writ petition are that in furtherance of the award dated 22.04.2014 the petitioner- Corporation deposited the amount in piecemeal as under : (i) Rs.25,000/- on 07.08.2014 (ii) Rs.2,75,000/- on 24.12.2014 (iii) Rs.2,90,507/- on 22.12.2016 3. At the time of disbursement, the Tribunal below found an additional sum of Rs.30,167/- to be due from the petitioner- Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner questioning the order dated 13.06.2017, contended that the Tribunal below has erred in finding the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,167/- due from the petitioner-Corporation, inasmuch as the amount deposited by the Corporation ought to have been reckoned firstly against the principal amount and not against the interest as has been done by the Tribunal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in I (1995) ACC (MP) 321 : Rai Singh Vs. Amarjeet Singh. 5. A perusal of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner makes it clear that the amount deposited by a borrower/judgment debtor is firstly required to be adjusted against the due interest and thereafter the same deserves to be reckoned against the principal amount. That apart this question is no more res integra as the same has now been settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs R.S. Avtar Singh and Company reported in AIR 2013 SC 252 relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereinfra : “From what has been stated in the said decision, the following principles emerge: (a) The general rule of appropriation towards a decretal amount was that such an amount was to be adjusted strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the decree and in the absence of such directions adjustments be made firstly towards payment of interest and cost and thereafter towards payment of the principal amount subject, of course, to any agreement between the parties. (b) The legislative intent in enacting sub-rules 4 and 5 is clear to the pointer that interest should cease to run on the deposit made by the judgment debtor and notice given or on the amount being tendered outside the Court in the manner provided in Order XXI Rule 1 Sub-clause (b). (c) If the payment made by the judgment debtor falls short of the decreed amount, the decree holder will be entitled to apply the general rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount deposited towards the interest, then towards cost and finally towards the principal amount due under the decree. (d) Thereafter, no further interest would run on the sum appropriated towards the principal. In other words if a part of the principal amount has been paid along with interest due thereon as on the date of issuance of notice of deposit interest on that part of the principal sum will cease to run thereafter. (e) In cases where there is a shortfall in deposit of the principal amount, the decree holder would be entitled to adjust interest and cost first and the balance towards the principal and beyond that the decree holder cannot seek to reopen the entire transaction and proceed to recalculate the interest on the whole of the principal amount and seek for reappropriation.” 6. The same principle has been further reiterated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of V. Kala Bharathi & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd reported in II (2014) ACC 219 (SC). 7. This being the position, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. The stay application No.6633/2019 is also disposed of.