Delhi Development Authority vs Pandit Munshi Ram Associates ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1887 Del

R-19

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       FAO(OS) 318/2006


       DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                      ..... Appellant

                        Through:     Mr. Gautam Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Vibhu
                                     Shankar, Advcoate
                        versus


       PANDIT MUNSHI RAM ASSOCIATES (PVT.)LTD & ANR.
                                               ..... Respondents

Through : Mr. D.Moitra, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.

% J U D G M E N T (Oral)

MUKUL MUDGAL, J

1 This appeal challenges the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the learned

Single Judge making the award a rule of the court after partially modifying the

same. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that quite apart

FAO(OS) 318/2006 Page 1 from the errors of the learned Single Judge in affirming the award, the substantial

objection of the appellant is to the grant of interest at 9% granted by the learned

Single Judge and which does not accord with Indian Interest Act. This court has

been consistently following the practice in view of the prevalent reduced rates of

interest and has been therefore awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum in

terms of judgments of Supreme Court in Rajendra Construction Co. v.

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC

678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006

(11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber

Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700 & Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G.Harischandra,

2007 (2) SCC 720. The learned Single Judge has granted interest at 9% and,

therefore, we do not feel any necessity to interfere with regard to the rate of

interest.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that interest upon

interest has been granted. Paras 19 and 20 of the judgment of the learned Single

Judge which reads as follows:

"19. Other objection is to the award of interest and it is submitted that awarding of interest @ 18% per annum is quite excessive. In view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Nav Bharat Construction Co., (2002) 1 SCC 659 and having regard to

FAO(OS) 318/2006 Page 2 the prevailing interest rates, award of interest @ 18% per annum appears to be excessive. Learned counsel for the contractor conceded that the interest may be reasonable reduced. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the pendent lite interest which is granted @ 18% per annum with effect from 3rd January 1992 till the date of award as well as future interest from the date of award till the date of decree should be paid @ 9% per annum. The award is modified to this extent. Decree in terms of the award. Other objections are dismissed.

CS(OS) No.1780A/97

20. The award as modified is made rule of the Court. Learned counsel for the claimant further agreed that in case payment is made within 60 days, no future interest from the date of decree would be claimed. It is ordered accordingly. However, in case payment is not made within 60 days, the decree holder shall be entitled to future interest as well @ 9% per annum from the date of decree till the next date of payment. Decree be drawn accordingly."

3. Perusal of the above judgment clearly shows that interest upon interest has

not been granted. This plea has not been raised in the grounds of appeal, but,

nevertheless in the interest of justice, we have examined the above plea and found

it to be bereft of merit.

4. The findings of the learned Single Judge are entirely factual while affirming

the award of the arbitrator. We see no reason to differ from the factual finding

arrived at by the arbitrator and affirmation of the award by the learned Single

Judge. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal since, as already stated, the

FAO(OS) 318/2006 Page 3 interest has been awarded at 9% per annum which is just fair and reasonable. The

appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

                                                      MUKUL MUDGAL,J


                                                      VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MAY 05, 2009/ib




FAO(OS) 318/2006                                                          Page 4