Hans Construction Company vs Delhi Development Authority
1994 Latest Caselaw 525 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.

(1) This is an application under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing the award dated 3.7.91 in the court and making the same rule of the court.

(2) Certain disputes between the petitioner and defendant-respondent no.1 were referred to Arbitration by Banarsi Das, the defendant-respondent no.2. He has given an award on 3.7.1990. The parties were afforded opportunity of filing objections.

(3) At this stage of the proceedings, it is conceded at the Bar that the only dispute that survives for adjudication is about the interest. Whether or not the Arbitrator could have awarded interest pendente lite and whether this Court should award future interest?

(4) The Arbitrator having adjudicated upon all the points of reference based on claims and counter claims of the parties, has, in the ultimate analysis, directed the defendant-respondent No.1 to pay an amount of Rs. 29,816 with simple interest calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from 10.12.86 to 3.7.91. The former is the date with which the arbitration proceedings had commenced. The latter date is the date of award.

(5) With the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore Prabhatilal Sharma And Others Vs. Vijayendra Prabhatilal Sharma And Another ; Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State Of Jammu And Kashmir ; And Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government Of Orissa And Others Vs. G.C. Roy , it is well settled that the Arbitrator has power to award interest pendente lite.

(6) The first para of the award itself states the Arbitrator having entered upon the reference on 10.12.86. The Arbitrator, therefore, did have jurisdiction to award interest for the period 10.12.86 to 3.7.91. I find no warrant for the proposition convassed by the learned counsel for the defendant that the date of entering upon reference by the Arbitrator should be taken 3.3.88 which was the first date of hearing appointed by the Arbitrator, in the submission of the learned counsel. So also, I find no merit in the contention that Arbitrator should have awarded interest @ 9% and not 12 % per annum. Merely because the rate of 9% could have been more reasonable, it cannot be a ground for interferring with the award of the Arbitrator.

(7) The Arbitrator has not awarded future interest. Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 empowers the Court to order interest from the date of the decree at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged by the award and confirmed by the decree if the award is for the payment of money. This Court can, therefore, direct payment of interest on the principal money from the date of the decree till realisation.

(8) The award is made rule of the court. It is further directed that the principal amount of Rs. 29,816.00 shall carry interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of decree till realisation.