Civil Revision No.3978 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3978 of 2001 Date of decision 6.12.2011. Naresh Kumar ...... Petitioner. versus Union of India and another ...... Respondents. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Rajiv Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. K.K.Kahlon, Advocate for the respondent No.1- UOI. K.C.PURI . J. The petitioner has directed the present revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short – CPC) for setting aside the order dated 8.11.2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned District Judge, Bathinda vide Civil Revision No.3978 of 2001 2 which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for modifying the judgment and decree dated 9.10.98 passed by Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Bathinda vide which the rate of interest has been reduced to 6% from 12% p.a. as awarded by the arbitrator. 2. It has been averred that respondent No.2-Arbitrator after hearing the applicant and respondent No.1 and going through the evidence produced by the parties gave the award dated 30.6.1994. The Arbitrator awarded interest from 28.10.1986 to 30.10.1993 at the rate of 12% per annum simple which is one of the items of the awarded amount. The Arbitrator further awarded simple interest @ 12% per annum from 31.10.1993 to the date of award and further interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award till the date of actual payment or court decree whichever is earlier. The work in question was in Bathinda and the award was also announced at Bathinda. 3. The said application was contested by the respondent/Union of India. It was alleged that the application under section 30 and 33 of the Act had been filed for setting aside the award. It was admitted that the award was announced by the Arbitrator, but the same was not liable to be set aside. It was admitted that the Arbitrator allowed interest. 4. Objection petition under Section 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act was filed and it was alleged that the award was against law and facts on the record. The award was not speaking one. The evidence was not discussed. The Arbitrator connived with the other party and so much so he even purchased the stamp papers at his own cost. The Arbitrator failed to appreciate that no amount was due to the applicant since Civil Revision No.3978 of 2001 3 he had not completed the work and the same was cancelled and got completed the work at his own risk and cost through the Forest Department Punjab. The interest was awarded in the absence of any specific agreement and the Arbitrator also failed to appreciate the law on the point. 5. The objection petition was contested by the applicant, who controverted all the allegations. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned lower Court:- 1. Whether the award dated 30.6.1994 is liable to be set aside the grounds mentioned in the head note of objection petition?OPO 2. Relief 7. The parties have led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the interest @ 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum on the awarded amount vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.1998. 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 9.10.1998, the applicant preferred appeal before learned District Judge, Bathinda, who vide his judgment dated 18.11.2000 dismissed the appeal. 9. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and decree, the present civil revision has been preferred before this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. Civil Revision No.3978 of 2001 4 11. The only point raised in this revision petition is whether the revisionist is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of Award till the Award was made rule of the Court. The trial Court has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority State of Orissa vs. B.N. Agarwalla reported in AIR 1997 page 925 and on the strength of the same, it is argued that future interest can be granted by the Arbitrator. However, the relevant discussion in that ruling is reproduced as under :- “From the date of passing of the award, future interest can be awarded by the arbitrator. The correct procedure which should be adopted by the arbitrator is to award future interest till the date of the decree or the date of payment, whichever is earlier. The effect of this would be that if the award is voluntarily accepted, which may not result in a decree being passed, then payment of interest would be made from the date of award till the date of payment. Where, however, the award is filed in the Court and a decree is passed in terms thereof, then it is for the Court to determine under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act as to whether interest should be ordered to be paid and if so at what rate. Under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, the Court can even where the arbitrator has awarded interest from the date of the award till the date of payment, disallow interest from the date of the decree or determine a different rate at which the Civil Revision No.3978 of 2001 5 interest is to be paid or confirm the grant of interest as awarded in the award. When the Court does not modify the award with regard to grant of interest from the date of the award upto the date of payment, the effect would be as if the Court itself has granted interest from the date of the decree till the date of payment at the rate which was determined by the arbitrator. The future interest would be regarded as having been ordered to be paid under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act when the ? Court does not modify the award in this respect.” 12. So, from the perusal of the said finding, it is crystal clear that discretion under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 lies with the grant of interest after the date of Award. The learned trial Court has relied upon authorities Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala and others vs. Abnaduta Jena AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1520 and State of Orissa vs. Damndaso Sahu AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1791. 13. In view of the above said authorities, the rate of interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum by the trial Court was well within its discretion in view of Section 29 of the Arbitration Act. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. That concurrent finding of fact cannot be said to be wrong or against law. 14. So, in these circumstances, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed with costs. Civil Revision No.3978 of 2001 6 15. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE December 6th , 2011. sv.