Managing Director, Punjab State Civil ... vs M/S Jai Durga Rice Mills Faridkot And Ors

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5711 P&H
Judgement Date : 13 March, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Managing Director, Punjab State Civil ... vs M/S Jai Durga Rice Mills Faridkot And Ors on 13 March, 2024

Author: Suvir Sehgal

Bench: Suvir Sehgal

                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037839




                                                  2024:PHHC:037839
CR-8855-2015
                                                    -1-
201

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
            AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CR-8855-2015
                                       Date of decision:-13.03.2024

Managing Director, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and
anr.

                                                                 ...Petitioners

                   Versus

M/s Jai Durga Rice Mills and others
                                                              ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present : Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
          for the petitioners.

            None for the respondents.

            ****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)

1. By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have impugned order dated 01.08.2015, Annexure P1, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby objections filed by the JDs- respondents have been accepted and the interest rate has been reduced.

2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners entered into an agreement dated 17.10.1996 with respondent No.1 for custom milling of paddy for crop year 1996-97. A dispute arose between the parties, which was referred to an Arbitrator for adjudication. An award dated 26.05.2003 was passed in favour of the petitioners for Rs.6,41,066/- besides interest @ 21% per annum. Objections filed by the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 16-03-2024 08:57:24 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037839 2024:PHHC:037839 CR-8855-2015 -2- 201 Act, 1996 (for short - 'the Act') were rejected by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur by judgment dated 06.12.2006. Petitioners preferred a petition for executing award dated 26.05.2003. Objections were filed by the JD - respondents, which have been accepted by the Executing Court by impugned order, Annexure P1, and the rate of interest granted on the awarded amount has been reduced from 21% per annum to 6% per annum.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the interest @ 21% per annum was granted by the Arbitrator in terms of the agreement between the parties and the Executing Court has committed an illegality by reducing it.

4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners.

5. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Similar was the position on the previous two occasions.

6. An award passed by the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act is deemed to be a decree and it has to be executed as it is under Section 36 of the Act, moreso when objections preferred thereagainst have been rejected. The Executing Court does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the decree. By taking a view that the interest awarded is excessive, the Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by reducing the rate of interest. Reliance placed by the Executing Court upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. Versus Indag Rubber Ltd. (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 700 is misplaced. A perusal of para No.9 of the judgment of the Apex Court shows that the Supreme Court had reduced the interest rate keeping in 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 16-03-2024 08:57:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037839 2024:PHHC:037839 CR-8855-2015 -3- 201 view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. The ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view thereof, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court cannot be sustained.

7. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, impugned order Annexure P1 is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Executing Court, which shall re-decide the objections filed by the respondents in accordance with law after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the arbitral award.

8. Revision Petition is disposed of.

9. Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 10.05.2024.


                                         (SUVIR SEHGAL)
13.03.2024                                  JUDGE
Brij

Whether reasoned/speaking :              Yes/No

Whether reportable                 :     Yes/No




Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037839 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 16-03-2024 08:57:25 :::