Delhi High Court
Krishan Kumar Madhok vs Union Of India on 19 December, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 966, 2002 (2) RAJ 221
Author: V Aggarwal
Bench: V Aggarwal
JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. On 11th February, 1997 this court made the award
a rule of the court and remitted the disputed part
which as not appropriately calculated by the
arbitrator. The findings of the court are:-
"From the above it is abundantly clear that
the Arbitrator did not work out the amount
which was payable to the petitioner in
respect of said claims. He left the
calculations to the respondents, which was not
right thing to do. The arbitrator should
have passed a definite award in respect of
the above said items. The fact that the
arbitrator passed an interim award in respect
of the above said claims is also evident from
the last para of the award. The said para
reads as follows:-
"In the result, I make an interim award in
this case and direct that the respondent said
shall work-out the rates of items covered in
the claims decided above in accordance with
the findings given above and shall send a
copy to the claimant side and the undersigned
within one month. In case the claimant side
agrees to the same, the payment shall be made
accordingly. In case the claimant does not
agree to the rates so arrived, the claimant
shall file their own analysis/calculations.
The case can then further heard in accordance
with law."
When the matter was referred to the
Arbitrator for adjudication, he could not
delegate this function to some one else. It
was for the Arbitrator to come to a definite
conclusions with regard to the rates and
costs of items covered by the claims.
In view of the foregoing reasons I consider
it appropriate to remit the matter relating
to the above said claims to the Arbitrator
for making the calculations on the basis of
findings already arrived at by him. It will
be open to the Arbitrator to consider the
question of awarding interest on the amount,
if any, awarded in favor of the petitioner
under the above said items. In so far as the
rest of the award is concerned, the same is
made a rule of the court and a decree in
terms thereof is hereby passed. Suit and IA
stand disposed of. Record of the Arbitrator
will be sent to the respondent for onward
transmission to the Arbitrator."
2. The arbitrator has now calculated the amount.
3. The learned counsel for Union of India wanted
to assail the findings and refer to some of the
documents that have been filed. During the course of
submissions it was conceded that these documents had
not been filed before the arbitrator. Once that was
the position indeed the objector/Union of India cannot
refer to those documents for the first time pertaining
to facts in court. The contention in this regard
necessarily has to be rejected.
4. In that event learned counsel for the Union
of India vehemently urged that the arbitrator was in
error in awarding interest keeping in vie the contest
that was between the parties. This contention of the
learned counsel for the Union of India necessarily has
to be stated to be rejected. Reassigns are obvious.
The award had been pronounced in 1988. The Union of
India did not care to make the payment of the amount.
Thus, the amount that was found due to the applicant
could not fetch any return upon it. As a consequence
it must be held that therefore awarding of the
interest by no stretch of imagination would be
arbitrary or illegal to prompt the court to interfere.
To that extent therefore the argument must also fail.
5. In view of the aforesaid for the rest of the
amount the award is made the rule of the court and
decree in terms of the award is passed. The applicant
would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
on the principal amount from the date of the present award till the final payment is made.
