IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Pet. No. 15 of 2009. Decided on September 14, 2010 Parkash Chand Thakur ..DH/Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another .. JDs/Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Sh. J.S.Bhogal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. By means of the present petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), petitioner has sought execution of award dated 10.6.2004, given by Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, Arbitrator. Award was passed for a sum of Rs.2,36,250/- in favour of petitioner-DH and against JDs-respondents, with interest @ 18% per annum (simple) from the date of award, till the payment and pendent lite interest @ 12% (simple). Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. Objections were filed against the said award by the JDs-respondents, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 8.12.2008. When the objection petition was pending in this Court, a sum of Rs.3,09,025/- had been deposited by the respondents. An application was made for making the deposit, in which it was stated that the said amount was being deposited, to avoid payment of future interest @ 18% per annum, as awarded by the Arbitrator. 4. Petitioner-DH claims that pendent lite interest is to be paid from the date of making of application for referring the claims of the petitioner to the arbitrator, i.e. 29.8.2002, in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, but the respondents have paid pendente lite interest from the date when the arbitrator entered upon arbitration, that is 29.8.2003. It is also the case of the petitioner-DH that he is entitled to future interest from the date of award of the arbitrator, that is 10.6.2004, till the money was transferred to their account, i.e. 31.12.2009, after the disposal of objections filed by the respondents JDs. 5. As regards the first contention, arbitrator has awarded interest @ 12% per annum for the period, during which arbitration proceedings remained pending. Respondents JDs have calculated the amount from the date when the arbitrator entered upon arbitration, that is 29.8.2003. - 3 - 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-DH argues that proceedings commenced when the petitioner made a request for referring the dispute to arbitration. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 21 of the Act, per which arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. That means, arbitral proceedings, in the present case, commenced when the respondents received request from the petitioner-DH for referring the dispute to arbitration. Request letter dated 29.8.2002 was sent by registered post. When a registered cover is not received back within 30 days, presumption is that the same stands delivered to the addressee. So, a presumption legitimately can be drawn that the request was received by the respondents –JDs on or before 28.9.2002. Respondents-JDs are, therefore, liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from 28.9.2002 to the date of award, in terms of the award of the arbitrator. The amount works out at Rs.25,987.50. Respondents-JDs are directed to pay this amount to the petitioner-DH within one month. 7. As regards the second contention, it is not in dispute that the deposit was made on 23.3.2005 and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the award to the date of deposit of money with this Court, had been calculated and - 4 - deposited, alongwith the award money. Learned counsel for the petitioner-DH contends that the money was not available for being withdrawn by the petitioner-DH, as the award was not executable on account of objections of the JDs- respondents being pending. In support of his contention, he relies upon Section 36 of the Act, which provides that where the limitation to make an application to set aside the arbitral award, under Section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been rejected, the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. Learned Counsel submits that since the award was not executable, award money could have been paid by the respondents-JDs, directly to the petitioner-DH and not by means of deposit in the Court, inasmuch as, Order 21 Rule 1 (1) CPC comes into play when the decree is executable. Order 21 Rule 1(1) CPC says that all money, payable under a decree shall be paid by one of the three modes, prescribed therein and the first such mode is by deposit into the Court, whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sending the same to that Court by postal money order or through a bank. In the present case, deposit was made by the respondents-JDs through an application, in which it was specifically stated that money was being paid to avoid liability for payment of future interest @ 18% per - 5 - annum. Deposit was unconditional and without any strings. That means, money was available for being paid to the petitioner-DH. Petitioner-DH did not make any application for withdrawal of money, which had been deposited unconditionally. 8. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in P.S.L.Ramanathan Chettiar and others v. O.R.M.P.R.M.Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1968 SC 1047, wherein it was held that where the deposit is made in the Court to seek stay of execution of a decree, such a deposit cannot be said to have been made for making payment to the DH and, therefore, the JD cannot escape liability for payment of interest on decree money. The judgment, in no way, supports the contention. In the case before the Supreme Court, deposit had been made to comply with the condition in the order, staying execution of the decree. It was held that deposit was not unconditional and the decree holder was not free to withdraw the money. In the present case, as demonstrated hereinabove, money had been deposited unconditionally. Application, which was made for making the deposit, did not suggest, even remotely, that the money was not to be released to the petitioner-DH. Deposit in the Court is one of the modes of paying money, per Order 21 Rule 1 (1) (a) CPC. The mere fact that the award was not enforceable - 6 - because of the provisions of Section 36 of the Act, on account of pendency of objections, at the time when the deposit was made in this Court, does not mean that deposit was not by way of tender of award money to the petitioner- DH. 9. In view of the abovestated position, it is held that the petitioner-DH is not entitled to future interest, beyond the date of deposit of award money with this Court, that is 23.3.2005. Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-JDs to pay a sum of Rs.25,987.50 to the petitioner-DH within one month from today, on account of balance of pendente lite interest, as held hereinabove. September 14, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.