International Security And ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1537 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This application for Review has been filed in respect of my judgment dated January 17, 2001, in which the impugned Award was made Rule of the Court. The Arbitrator had directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to pay the Claimant (the Applicant before me in this Review) a total sum of Rs. 1,10,03,940/- together with future interest at the rate of sixteen per cent (16%) per annum with effect from 18.3.1997 till the date of the decree or realisation whichever is earlier. It has been contended that inadvertently or by oversight the Court had not granted interest in favor of the Claimant from the date of the decree till the date of realisation.

2. Dr. K.S. Siddu, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-MCD has submitted that it is essential that the format of the Review should be in the form indicated in Order XLI Rule 1 C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Order XLVII Rule 3 C.P.C. Although there is substance in the argument it must be borne in mind that rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid of justice. Too much significance, therefore, should not be placed on such an objection. Mr. R.P. Bansal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Applicant has stated that he would amend his application so as to make it conform with Order XLI Rule 1 C.P.C. I find it unnecessary to delve further into this controversy.

3. Dr. Siddu has drawn attention to the fact that a prayer for the grant of future interest at the rate of sixteen per cent (16%) per annum, as awarded by the learned Arbitrator, from the date of judgment/decree till the date of realisation, had been made in the petition. It is his submission that since it had not been granted in the judgment sought to be reviewed it must be deemed to have been declined. I find considerable force in this contention. Even otherwise, keeping in view the fact that interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum had been granted by the Arbitrator effective atleast till the passing of the decree, I had consciously not awarded interest up to the date of realisation of the decretal amount.

4. I find no merit in the application. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which calls to be reviewed.

5. Dismissed.