In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4446 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: July 22, 2009 Union of India .. Petitioner Vs. M/s Anmol Industries Corporation and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J This petition is directed against the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby the appeal preferred by the Union of India against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2001 was dismissed. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court which passed the award had no territorial jurisdiction; secondly, both the Courts below fell in error while awarding interest @ 10% per annum To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that rate of interest has been rightly awarded, stating that it was commercial transaction and the interest awarded was not on the higher side. The Arbitrator was fully competent to give interest more than 6% per annum. Arguments heard. Learned Tribunal while relying on the judgment delivered in case State of J&K vs. Dev Dutt Pandit, 1999 (4) Recent Civil Reports (SC) 169, wherein it was observed that “where the liability is arising out of commercial transaction, award of interest at the rate of 10% by the Arbitrator cannot be held to be wrong.” The court observed that the interest awarded to the respondent was not exorbitant. I have also examined the issue and to my mind, in case Civil Revision No. 4446 of 2002 (O&M) -2- *** of commercial transaction, the interest could be awarded even up to 18% per annum, but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. Nothing such was found as to throw away the case on the question of territorial jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the issue of jurisdiction cannot be raised when the trial has already concluded and at the revisional stage. As such, in this case, the interest so awarded @ 10% per annum was not on the higher side. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. July 22, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge