IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 127 of 2005 Date of Decision : July 28, 2009 Sh. Ram Narain Madan Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondents : Mr. J. S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) On 24.3.2009 the following order was passed by this Court:- “24.3.2009 Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.D. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is an error in mathematical calculation in the impugned judgment and decree. To enable Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General to obtain instructions, the matter is adjourned by two weeks.” 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 In terms of letter dated 6.4.2009 written by the Executive Engineer, Una Division, HP PWD, Una the calculations stand checked and verified. The communication dated 6.4.2009 is taken on record. In terms of said letter the error in the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in calculating the interest admittedly comes to Rs. 17,445/-. Further, the Court below has awarded interest w.e.f. 13.11.1986 whereas under the agreement entered into between the parties the interest became due and payable with effect from the due date i.e. 9.7.1985. The difference in the amount of interest, based on the rate of interest i.e. 10%, so awarded by the Court below, for the same comes to Rs. 34,171/-. Thus the total amount works out to be Rs. 51,616/- as indicated in the aforesaid communication. Keeping in view the aforesaid position Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, pressed his appeal only on the question of rate of interest, which according to him should be @ 18% instead of 10% as awarded by the Court below. Mr. J. S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State, has opposed the prayer by referring to and relying upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. versus G. Harischandra Reddy & another, AIR 2007 SC 817 wherein it has been held as under:- “… We do not see any reason to interfere except on the rates of interest and on the quantum awarded for letting machines of the contractor remaining idle 3 for the periods mentioned in the Award. Here also we may add that we do not wish to interfere with the Award except to say that after economic reforms in our country the interest regime has changed and the rates have substantially reduced and, therefore, we are of the view that the interest awarded by the Arbitrator at 18% for the pre-arbitration period, for the pendente lite period and future interest be reduced to 9%.” No doubt the plaintiff has now claimed interest @ 18% per annum and the contractual rate between the parties was higher than what was so awarded by the Court below, but however keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam (supra), I feel that interest @ 10% has been rightly awarded by the Court below. The same is just, fair and reasonable. In this view of the matter it is held that the plaintiff/appellant shall be entitled to interest based on the calculations made by the State. The impugned judgment and decree dated 11.2.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 80/99 RBT No. 8/04/99, titled as Shri Ram Narain Madan versus State of H.P. and another is modified to the aforesaid extent. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant further pressed that the amount be immediately remitted to the appellant. 4 However Mr. J. S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General has stated that the same shall be deposited in this Court within a period of two months from today. Appeal disposed of accordingly. Dasti copy. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 28, 2009 (PK)