@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT SILASPUR MA. No.37l2003 $ingie Bench: Hon’bie Shri Dim) Racsaheb Deshmukh,uJ. Anpenants 1 . SEQL. Defendants Thraugh-Genera! Manager, Chifimiri, Sub Area GM. Complex Maivi Nagar, Post Podi, Disi‘t. Koriya (Chhattisgar'n) 2. Sub Area Manaqer, S.E.C.L. N.C.P.H. Coliiery Pos’: at Haidibadi (Chirimiri) Distt. Koréya (C.G.) Versus Respboncient ‘ Manik Bhadra S/o late Shri Sudhir Plaimiff Kumar Bhadfa, aged about 42 years, Occupation-Contractor, R/o Haldibadi (Chirimiri) Bisti. Koriya (C.G.) ikiopeai unéer $ection 3"!” of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 198$. Present“ Shri H.B.Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.K. Gupia, Advocate for the appeiiants. MS. Sharmiia Singhai, ccunsei for the respondent. om. ORDER {Passed on 1st“ Juiy, 2007) Heard. (2) The appeiiants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 03-09-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya in Civil $uit Ne.3-A¥1995 whereby the obiection for setiing aside an arbitrai award dated 15-11-1997 passed by the arbitrater appointed with the consent of the parties was dismissed. (3) Shri H. B. Agrawai, learned Sr. Advecate appearing on behalf of the appeilants urged that he would assail the impugned order oniy on the ground that the compound interest of 18% awarded by the learned Additional District Judge from 28-08-1991 tiil recovery is exwbitan‘t and canno‘i be said to be reasonable under Section 29 of the Arbitratmn Act 1940. No other point was urged (4) Ms. Shaymiia Singhai; ieamed counse} for the respondent opposed the prayer. (5) Having heard rival contentions, I have perused the impugned judgment. (6) Under Sectton 29 of the Arbitrataon Act 1940 interest to be awarded shoutd be reasonabie l am of consrdered opinion that the Interest of 18% awarded by the learneo Addmonai Distnct Judge Is exorbttant and cannot be k” said to be reasonable. Therefore! award is accordingty modified and instead of 18%, compound interest @ 14% is awarded from 28-08-19e1 tit? recovery of t'ne amount awarded by t'ne soie arbitrator. (7) With t’ne aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed oi. 7// / ‘ e .sdl- h mtip RaoSaheb “es ~ a Judge mukh > l