IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3737 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 21, 2009 State of Punjab and another .....Petitioners Versus M/s Bhullar Construction Company and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Palvinder Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General,Punjab for the petitioners. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for respondent No.1. T.P.S. MANN, J. The present revision has been filed against the dismissal of the objections filed by the State of Punjab against award dated 2.9.2003 made by respondent No.2 regarding the dispute arising between the petitioners on the one hand and respondent No.1 on the other in respect of construction of SYL Canal RD 76.300 to RD 76.700. In the award, the claim of respondent No.1 for payment of various amounts was granted and he was allowed interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 15% per annum from 10.3.1993 upto the date of the award. Respondent No.1 was also granted future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded amount, including the interest, from the date of the award till the date of payment or the decree by the Court, whichever was earlier. Vide order dated 2.12.2005, learned Civil Judge (Senior Civil Revision No. 3737 of 2009 -2- Division) Ropar dismissed the objection petition with costs and the award dated 2.9.2003 was made rule of the Court and, accordingly, a decree in terms of the award passed in favour of respondent No.1. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners filed an appeal which was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Rup Nagar on 5.3.2009. The petitioners are now before this Court by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein they have prayed for setting aside of the judgments passed by the learned Courts below and also the award dated 2.9.2003. Before the learned lower Court, the petitioners had challenged the award dated 2.9.2003 with regard to claims No. 2, 4, 9 and 10. Under claim No.2, the Arbitrator had awarded an amount of Rs.37,79,460/- on account of idleness charges of machinery, labour and establishment from 23.7.1990 to 25.11.1992, whereas under claim No. 4, the security amount to the extent of Rs.58,099/- was ordered to be released. An amount of Rs.4,39,050/- was awarded to respondent No.1 under claim No. 9 on account of loss of profits. A perusal of the award dated 2.9.2003 would reveal that findings on these issues were arrived at on the basis of the material produced by the parties before the Arbitrator. Minute details regarding all the claims had been given. Even letter dated 29.8.1990 issued by the State and served upon respondent No.1 regarding machinery, labour, equipments, etc. had been considered. Respondent No.1 could not complete the balance work on account of an unfortunate incident in which the Chief Engineer was gunned down in his office by the terrorists, who were opposed to the construction of SYL Canal. No case is, thus, made out for interference in the impugned award regarding claims No.2, 4 and 9. Civil Revision No. 3737 of 2009 -3- As regards claim No. 10 pertaining to the grant of interest, the parties under the agreement had agreed for payment of the same at the rate of 15% per annum. However, before the Arbitrator, respondent No. 1 demanded interest at the rate of 24%. Keeping in view the rate prescribed in the agreement under Clause 8, learned Arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 15% from 10.3.1993 upto the date of the award. Besides the aforementioned interest, respondent No.1 was also awarded future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. According to the petitioners, future interest at the rate of 12% was highly exorbitant and against the terms of the agreement. Keeping in view the fact that the interest rates had been lowered by the banks on or around the time of the award, learned Arbitrator considered it just and proper to award future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court to show that the bank interest rate in the year 2003 was much lower than the one at which future interest was awarded. Under these circumstances, no interference can be made even with the future interest granted at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded amount, including interest up to the date of the award, from the date of award till the date of payment. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision, which is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 21, 2009 JUDGE satish