Agatost v. M/s Joharmal Jhoomarlal

Agatost Inpugned Judgeaent. Aa Civil S-iit, No. l^A/99 teted l%ril 2005. Passed by Shri Rangaath Chandraker ^yy ^' <^/ ^^I&s-brict Ju<3ge, Duig. S I'' <2cu"T>~ (o'A'tv \';o\lu<-^ d4- j-^, ^..^ Belag aggrieved partly, by -fche above judgeinait and decree the appellant aost re^>ectfully subaits •fchls appeal onl 'allowiSR fac-fcs and yK grounds : y^^r- \w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH Sina-le Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Samav K. Aarawal First Appeal No.166 of 2003 Appellant Respon^lent versus M/s Joharmal Jhoomarlal Towari Executive Tandula Division Engineer, Appeal under Section 96_oS_the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 39(1) (vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ; Appearances_of the counsel: Barun Chakravarty, Shri appellant/plaintiff. Shri Vinay Harit, the State/respondent/defendant. counsel Deputy Advocate General for ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 21st November, 2013) (1) This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'the Code') read with Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (henceforth 'the Act, 1940') challenging the judgment 1-4-2003 passed District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No.l-A/1999, by which the award dated 2-3-2002 passed by the Arbitrator has been made absolute and whereas the parallel award of the learned Arbitrator has been set aside refusing interest and the interest has been awarded from the ",,^A~<^>\ 'E"':1'"^. ^,-^/ ^•^.•^v^" award, i.e., 2-3-2002 realization at the rate of 6%. (2) The original award was passed by Shri D.K.Verma, Superintending Engineer, Shivnath Irrigation Division, Durg on 29-8-1987 and the said award was remitted under Section 16 of the Act, 1940 reconsideration specific undetermined Arbitrator.

Now, Arbitrator, by his award dated 2-3-2002 passed an award of ?6,094/-, but declined to grant interest on the said award. The appellant/contractor filed an application under Section 151 of the Code for making ah award as a rule of Court and also prayed for setting aside the award so far as the award of the Arbitrator declining interest. (3) The learned District Judge, impugned judgment dated 1-4-2003, so far as the part of the award A to A is concerned, made the same as a rule of the Court and set aside the part of the award declining interest and granted interest @ 6% from the date of award till its realization. (4) Shri Barun Chakravarty, learned eounsel appearing for the appellant/contractor would submit learned District Judge absolutely unjustified in granting interest @ 6%. He ought to 1 i •;.? ^•".•^ .. a"-' Y. have granted interest @ 12%. * (5) On the other hand, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing State/respondent submit original award was passed in the year 1987 which was remitted for reconsideration under Section 16 of the Act, 1940 and the entire amount has already been paid to the claimant and, therefore, the interest @ 6% wholly justified.

(6) I considered submissions and perused the record sult. (7) Looking to the fact that the original award was passed 1987 remitted reconsideration and the District Judge has granted interest @ 6% by a modification while making the award as a rule of Court and looking to the price index prevailing at that time, award of interest at the rate of 6% cannot be said to be so unreasonable requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The award of interest @ 6% is justified. (8) In the result, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. IKI 1111; (9) A decree be drawn-up accordingly. c^ Sd/- SanjayK-Agrawal Judge r~ Gopal i^ Wttgsii