M/S Uttam Company vs S.G. Stock Services Ltd.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1438 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                                                      #2
+      FAO(OS) 201/2008

       M/S UTTAM COMPANY                                 ..... Appellant
                      Through : Mr. V.K. Rao, Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocates
            versus

       S.G. STOCK SERVICES LTD.                                   ..... Respondent
                        Through : None
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

                             ORDER

% 25.08.2008

This appeal is directed against an order dated 19th February, 2008 passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing OMP No. 109/2008 filed by the appellant

challenging an Award dated 16th October, 2007 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The

Tribunal awarded the appellant a sum of Rs.26,90,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum

with effect from 22nd November, 2006 till the date of payment. The appellant was also

awarded costs of Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal also rejected an application filed by the

appellant under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) for

passing an additional award. Thereafter, the appellant filed OMP No. 109/2008 under

Section 34 of the Act which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The impugned order records that the only ground urged before the learned Single

Judge was that the Tribunal ought to have directed the respondent to pay to the appellant

the market value of the shares belonging to the appellant. The learned Single Judge

negatived the claim holding that once the appellant had quantified its claim before the

Tribunal by specifically giving a figure of Rs.26,90,000/- as payable by the respondent

along with interest, it could not claim any higher amount as that would be beyond the

scope of the claim.

FAO(OS) 201/2008 Pg.1 of 2

3. The appellant then urged that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 2%

per month instead of @ 9% per annum. The learned Single Judge has, after referring to

the settled position in law as explained by the judgments of the Supreme Court, negatived

this contention. It has been rightly held that awarding interest at a rate lower than that

claimed by the appellant is not an error that would call for interference by the Court.

4. Having heard submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, we are not

persuaded to take a different view in the matter. There is no merit in this appeal and it is

dismissed as such.

                                                                         CHIEF JUSTICE



                                                                     S.MURALIDHAR, J
AUGUST 25, 2008
Pk




FAO(OS) 201/2008                                                             Pg.2 of 2