72 Civil Revision NoA885 of 2002 1 V0 IN THE HlGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision NoA885 of 2002 Date ofdecision I10201 m Haryana State Labour ceConstructionFederationLtd 0 0 Petitioner I versus I StateIndustrialDevelopment Ltd Z J Oee L CORAM HONBLE N JUSTICE KCPURl I 1 Reportersof Local Newspapers may be allowed to Z seethe e 2 To be referredto theReporters or not2 Ctl 6 3 Whetherthejudgment should be reported in theDigest2 A7 Z Present 1 Mr RlCMalik Senior Advocate with Mr Pardeep Solath Advocate for the petitioner Mr RajeshHooda Advocate for Mr Kamal SehgalAdvocate for the UOI Mr Manish Deswal DeputyAdvocate General Haryana ICCPURI J The petitioner has flled this petitionagainstthe order dated 202002 by SmtSneh Prashar IearnedAdditional District ludge vide which the appealpreferred by the petitioneragainstthe orderdated291 1997passedby Mr Singh PCS Sub JudgeIst Parkash Om Mani Ram 2012.08.06 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 7 Civil Revision NoA885 of 2002 2 9W Class was partlyaccepted to the extent of reducing the rate of lnterest from 18Iopa to 6Io p 2 The facts leadingto the presentcase are that Shri SPGrover was appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the disputebetween the parties The Arbitrator gavehis award dated 10A1995 On havingreceived a copy 1 Q of the same the petitioner filed objections under Section 17 30 and 33 of 0 the Arbitration Act challenging the Award dated 10A1995 on vanous 0 I grounds as illegaland prayingfor settingaside the same The objections 0 raised were that the had moved an appiication before the Arbitrator in which it was prayedthat the 1S Z 5t under the SocietiesAct and is account 0 booksregularlyso it be directed to produce the relevant documents details 4t I of which were givenin the application However the Arbitrator passed no Z order on thatapplication which amountedto misconduct of It 4t CO wasalso allegedthat the had not done any work on the site Ct 7 and it was got done through a Subcontractor the subecontractorhad not Z raisedany claim either from the or 8om the petitioner Ll corporatlonnor it was madepartyto the before the Arbitrator In the absenceof the Subecontractorwho had actuallydone the work all before the arbitrator were illegal and ultra vires the was not entitled to any or lnterest when no work was done by lt The other objections raised by the petitionerwere that no evidence had been producedby the in supportofits claim The application for production ofdocuments and inspection of record moved by the respondent was allowed by the 18 Parkash Om Mani Ram 2012.08.06 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 Civil Revision NoA885 of 2002 3 r Arbitrator although there was no necessity for allowingthe same The Arbitrator was conducting the with mind and wasan interestedperson who wanted to favour the respondenociety and henceacted in a biased manner The work was leR incomplete by the which was got done at the risk and cost of the 1 for which thepetitioner filed counter claim beforethe Arbitrator 0 The Arbitrator met the ManagingDirector of the petitioner 0 I for Cooperationand also its ofOcial to appear as a C9 Wltness and this all amountedto miscondt4 of by him The I had filed objectionpetitionagainstthe award made in another Z 5t case bythe said Arbitrator in favour and this act was D withinthe notice ofthe Arbitrator yet he was adamantto decide the instant I claim and made another award 111favourof the A singleline r Z awardwas passed to meet the objection and interest 2410per annum was awarded It was not clariSed in the award how much was awarded It was CO not claritled in the award how much was awarded for the work done and S7 Z how much was the interest etc thus it was allegedthat the Arbitrator had 0m misconductedhimself and the and a prayer for seuingaside the awardedwas made 4 On put to notice the claimantappeared and filed replyand took up objection with regardto the of the objection petitioner was raised 5e On merits it was submittedthatthe moved a frivolousapplication for production of documentsfrom thecustodyof the claimant Societywhich was not relevant for proper of the Parkash Om Mani Ram 2012.08.06 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 Civil Revision NoA885 of 2002 4 6 disputeThe claimanteFederationfiled replystatingthat no such record as demandedbythe was available with the societyIt was deniedthat the Arbitrator had misconductedthe in any manner Denyingotheraverments theprayed for dismissalofthe objectionpetition 6 From the pleadings ofthe partiesfollowingissueswere framed 1 CC bythe trial Court 1 0 1 e Whetherthe awardgivenbythe arbitratoris liable to be 0 setaside on thegrounds mentionedin theobjection I petition2OPO 40 2 Relief I Z 7 The objectordid not lead any evidence in spiteof number of to lead evidence but he failed to producethe same and the 0 samewas closed byorder ofthe Court I 8 The trial Court afterhearing the Ieamedcounsel for the parties Z decided theobjections againsttheobjectorand madethe Award rule ofthe C Court vide judgmentdated2911997 and the interest was granted 18Io ee Z p from the date of passingof the award till actual realization of the tl amount 9 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgmentdated 291 1997 theobjectorpreferredappealbefore theAppellateCoun and the learned Additional District Judge vide judgmentdated 202002 partlyaccepted the appealand awardedinterest 6Io per annum on delayed paymentsof runningbills from the date of award till the dateof final realizationofthe decretalamount 10 Feeling dissatis6ed with the aforesaid judgmentdated 2032002 the haspreferred thepresentrevision petition Parkash Om Mani Ram 2012.08.06 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 0 Civil Revision NoA885 of 2002 5 11 I have heard learned counsel for the partiesand have gone through the recordsofthe case 12 The dispute 111 the present lis 1S between the statutory authoritiesof the Stateof Haryanaregarding rate of interest The prayer madebythe petitioner is for grantof iinterestat the rate of 18Io per annum 0 insteadof6Io per annum allowed bythe First Appellate Court 0 13 Shri RlCMalik leamed senior counsel for the petitioner has 0 I relied upon authority Government of NCT Delhi vs Ved Parkash 0 IVIehta2005 1SupplementarvlArbitration LR 170 1DeIhil ofDelhi High Court and on the strength ofthe same it is arguedthatawarding ofinterest Z 18Ioper annum is r 14 I have carefullyconsideredthe said submissionmadeby Malik I Ieamedcounsel for the petitioner and have gonethrough the recordsof the t Z caseandalso the authoritycited above m 15 The authority relatesto the Arbitration and Conciliation Act m7 1996 The presentcase is covered byArbitration Act 1940and not bythe Z Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 In the amended Act 1996 lll tl Section 3 16796a9and bl the word shalr has been used and it 1S mentioned that arbitration award shall unless the award otherwise direct carryinterest at the rate of 18Io from the date of award to the date of paymentThat fact was not missingin the Arbitration Act of 1940 16 The Honble ApexCourt in authority State of Rajasthanand another vse Nav Bharat Construction 1200211 SCC 659the rate of interestwas slashedfrom 150Ioto 6Io Parkash Om Mani Ram 2012.08.06 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 1 Civil Revision NoA885 of 2002 6 r r 17 Again Delhi High Court in authorityDelhi Development Authoritv VSe Mls Mavor Furnishers and Decorators 2002 21 RCR Civill paee 11 reducedthe rate ofinterest Som 18Ioto 105Io per annum as prevalentSo in these authoritiesthe discretion exercised by the First AppellateCourt regardingthe grant of Interest does not call for any 1 interference 0 18 In view ofthe abovediscussion the revlSlOll petitionis without 0 I any merit and the same stands dismissed In Vlew of the peculiar C5 circumstances ofthe case thepartiesare left to bear their own costs 19 A copy of this judgmentbe sent to the trial Court for strict Z 0 t 1 I JUDGE October 19 2011 9 Z SV oo 1 7 Z ll 6 a1 Parkash Om Mani Ram 2012.08.06 13: 59 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document