j 66 4 Civil Revision NoA884 of 2002 1 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision NoA884 of 2002 Date ofdecision 19 102011 1 0 Haryana State Labource ConstructionFederationLtd 0 I Petitioner C5 versus Z Haryana StateIndustrial Ltd ee0ee I CORAM HONBLE N07 JUSTICE KCPURI C0 Z 1 WhetherReporters of Local may be allowedto QO see 7 2 To be referredto theReporters or not2 Z 3 Whether should bereported in theDigest2 Present Mr RCMalik SeniorAdvocatewith Mr Pardeep Solath Advocatefor the petitioner A4r RajeshHooda Advocate for Mr Kamal SehgalAdvocatefor theUOI Mr ManishDeswal DeputyAdvocateGeneral Haryana KCPURI J The petitionerhas filed this petitionagainstthe order dated 2032002 passedby Smtneh Prashar IearnedAdditional District Judge IO r rt Pooja 2012.08.03 17: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C 67 0 Civil Revision NoA884 of 2002 2 vide which the appeal by the petitioneragainstthe order dated 5101996 passedby Miss Harpreet Kaur PCS Sub JudgeIst Class was partlyaccepted to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 18Iopa to 6Io pa 1 2 The facts leading to the presentcase are that Shri SPGrover was appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the disputebetween the parties 0 0 construction of Industrial Shed at Industrial Estate Panchkula I C5 vide order dated 309 1994 passedby Shri HPS Mahal the then leamed I Sub JudgeIst Class The Arbitrator gave his award dated Z 2561995 On havingreceived a copy of the same the petitioner filed an applicationunder Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act seeking C directionto the Arbitration to file the Award in the Court 3 It has been Alrtheraverredthat after the award was received Z the petitioner filed objectionpetitionunder Sections17 30 and 33 of the m Act on numerous grounds and prayingto set asidethe same The objections 7 Z raisedwere that the hadmoved an before Om the Arbitrator 111 which it was prayedthat the 1S under the SocietiesAct and is account books so it be directedto produce therelevant documents details of which were givenin the application However the Arbitrator passed no order on that application which amountedto misconductof It was also alleged that the had not done any work on the site and it was got done through a Subwcontractorthe subecontractorhad not raised any claim either from the or from the petitioner nor it was madepartyto the before the Arbitrator Pooja 2012.08.03 17: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 0 Civil Revision NoA884 of 2002 3 In the absenceof the Sulcontractor who had actuallydone the work all before the arbitrator were illegal and ultra vires the was not entitled to any or interestwhen no work was done by it The other raisedbythe 1 petitioner were that no evidence had been producedby the societyin supportof its clam The application for production of documents 0 0 and of record moved by the was allowed by the I C5 Arbitrator althoughthere was no necessityfor allowingthe same The Arbitrator was the with mind and Z wasan interestedperson who wanted to favourthe and henceacted in a biasedmanner The work was left by the L which was got done at the risk and cost of the I for which the filed counter claim beforethe Arbitrator Z The Arbitrator met the ManagingDirector of the personally OO for and also its official to appear as a v Z witness and this all amountedto misconduct of by him The tl had ftled petitionagainst the award made in another casebythe said Arbitratorin favour on 10A1995 and this act was within the notice of the Arbitrator yet he was adamantto decide the instant claim and made another award in favour of the A singleline award was passedto meet the objectionand lnterest 24Io per annum was awarded It was not clarifled in the award how much was awarded It was not claried in the award how much was awardedfor the work done and how much was the interestetc thus it was allegedthat the Arbitrator had misconductedhimself and the Pooja 2012.08.03 17: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 0 s Civil Revision NoA884 of 2002 4 and a prayer for setting asidetheawardedwas made 4 On put to notice theclaimantappeared and filed replyandtook up with regard to the of the petitioner was raised 1 5 On merits it was submittedthat the moved a frivolous for of documents8om thecustody of the 0 0 claimantSocietywhich was not relevant for proper of the I t5 disputeThe claimanFederation filed replystatingthatno such recordas I demandedbythe was availablewith the societyItwas Z deniedthat the Arbitratorhad misconductedthe in any manner Denying other averments theprayedfor dismissalofthe petition L 6 From the ofthe partiesfollowing issues were framed I C bythetrial Court Z 1 Whethertheaward dated2561996 is liable to be set aside 2OPO m 2 Whetherthe are not maintainable20PP Z 3 Relie 7 The objector1edits evidenceon the aforesaidissueswhereas the did not optto leadany evidence 8 The trial CourtaRer hearing the leamed counsel for theparties decidedtheobjections against the objector and madethe Award rule ofthe Court vide dated 501996 and the interest was granted 18Io Pee from the date of passingof the award till actual realization of the amount 9 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgmentdated Pooja 2012.08.03 17: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 l c Civil Revision NoA884 of 2002 5 5101996 theobjector preferredappealbeforethe Appellate Court and the leamed Additional District Judge vide dated 202002 partly andthe appeal and awarded interest 6Io per annum on delayed paymentsofrunning bills from the date of avvardtill the 1 dateoffinal realizationofthe decretalamount 10 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgmentdated 0 0 203002 the has thepresentrevision petition 0 11 I have heardleamed counsel for the partiesand have gone I through the recordsofthe case Z 12 The dispute111 the presentlis 1S between the statutory authoritiesof the Stateof Haryanaregarding rate of interest The prayer for C the is for grantof interestat the rate of 18Io per annum insteadof I Co 60Ioper annum allowedbythe First Appellate Court Z 13 Shri RCMalik leamed senior counsel for the petitioner has 00 4 reliedupon Govemmentof NCT Delhi vseVed Parkash Mehta 7 Z 2005 Supplementarvl Arbitration LR 170 Delhil of Delhi HighCoun 11 and on the of the interest same it is argued that of i 18Ioper annum is alsojusti6ed 14 I have carefully considered the said submission made by Shri Malik learned senior counsel for thepetitioner andhave gone through the recordsofthe case andalso theauthoritycitedabove 15 The authority relates to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 The presentcase 1S covered by Arbitration Act 1940 and not bythe Arbitrationand Conciliation Act 1996 In the amended Act 1996 lll Section316799 and o9 the word shall has been used and it 1S Pooja 2012.08.03 17: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 1 4 1 5 Civil Revision NoA884 of 2002 6 y F Section 317 6a9and 6b9 the word shall has been used and it 1S mentioned that arbitration award shall unless the award otherwise direct carryinterestat the rate of 180Iofrom the date of award to the dateof paymentThat fact was not missingin the Arbitration Act of 1940 16 The Honble ApexCourtin State of Raiasthan and l another vse Nav Bharat Construction 200211 SCC 659 the rate of 0 0 interestwas slashedfrom 15Ioto 6Io I C5 17 AgainDelhi HighCourt in authorityDelhi I Authoritv VSe Mls Mavor Furnishers and Decorators 2002 123RCR Z Civill paee 11 reducedthe rate of interest8om 18Io to 103Io per amum as So in theseauthoritiesthe discretion exercisedby the First AppellateCourt regardingthe grant of interest does not call for any I t3 interference Z In view of the abovediscussion the revision petitionis without 10 anymerit and the same stands dismissed In view of the peculiar 7 Z circumstancesofthe case theparties are left to bear their own costs A copy of this judgmentbe sent to the trial Court for strict 1 JUDGE October 19 2011 9 Sv 1 CP4 1 1 1 t3 1 15 1 Pooja 2012.08.03 17: 08 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document