R‘€“ GF CHHATTI§GARH AT E§LA$PUR MA. No.83i2im3 $ing§e Bench: Hon’bie Shri Dilip Raosahe§ Deshmukh, J. 1 Appeilants f 1. S.E.C.L. Beendantg ThroughChief Genera! Managerx Rio Maiviya Nagar, PasFWest Chirimiri, Distt. Koriya (Chhattisgarh) 2. Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L. Chirimiri, Area N.C.P.H. Coiiiery, Haidibadi, Disii, Koriya (CG) Versus Manik Bhadra S/o iate Sudhir Kumar P!a§ntiff - Bhadra, aged abeut 42 years, R/c Haldibadi, Near Taikies Haidibadi, Manendragarh, Dist: Keriya (C.G.) £ppeai under Seciion 37 of the Arbitration am Conciiiation Act, 19%. Present > ' - Shri H.B.Agrawa5, Sr. Advocate with §hri J.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appeHants. Ms. Sharmiia Singhai, ccunsei for the respcndent. QWAL ORD§R Passed en 18‘“ July, 200.7) Heard. (2) The appei’lanrs are aggrieved by the judgment dated 03-09-2002 passed by the Additionai District Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya in Civit Suit No.24-A/1994 whereby the objection fer setting aside an arbitrai award dated 15-1 1-199? passed by the arbitrator appointee with the consent of the parties was dismissed. (3) I Shri H. B. Agrawai, iearned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appeiiants urged that he wouid assaii the impugned order oniy on the ground that the interest of 18% awarded by the teamed Additional District Judge from 08-06-198g tiil recovery is exorbitant and cannot be said to be HIGH $$U Resnondent reasonabie under Section 29 01‘ the Arbitiation Act 1940. No other point was urged. (4) Ms. Sharmila Singhai, ieamed counsel fer the respondent opposed the prayer. (5) Having heard rival contentions, i have perused the impugned judgment. (6) Under Section 29 or“ the Arbitration Act, 1940 interest to be awarded should be reasonabie. I am of considered opinion that the interest of 18% aw‘érded by the learned Additionai District Judge is exorbitant and cannot be said to be reasonable Therefore, the award is accordingly modified and instead of 18%, compound interest @ 14% is awarded from 08-06-1989 till recovery of the amount awarded by the soie arbitrator. (7) With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. Sdl- Dilip RaoSaheb Designing Judge