Delhi High Court
G.D. Tewari & Co. vs Delhi Development Authority on 6 October, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 18.09.2015
Judgment delivered on: 06.10.2015
+ CM No. 18095/2014 in FAO(OS) 183/2005
G.D. TEWARI & CO. ..... Appellant/ Applicant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr R.K. Bachchan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr Rakesh Mittal & Mr Kamlesh Anand, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J
1. This is an application which seeks clarification of the judgement dated
14.02.2012, passed by the Division Bench (as then constituted), of which
one of us (Rajiv Shakdher, J), was a member. The said judgement was
passed in an appeal preferred by the contractor.
1.1 Noticing the aforesaid position, the Division Bench comprising of
Hon'ble Mr Justice Kailash Gambhir (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr
Justice Najmi Waziri, vide order dated 07.11.2014 referred the matter to a
Bench of which one of us (Rajiv Shakdher, J.) was to be a member.
1.2 This is how the matter has been placed before this Bench.
2. The Division Bench vide judgement dated 14.02.2012 dealt with two
claims of the appellant. These being: sub-heads 12 and 23 of part IV of
claim no. 8, concerning extra items.
2.1 Pertinently, the Division Bench noted that the appellant itself had
confined the appeal to the aforesaid claims, at the very first hearing held in
the appeal, on 05.07.2005.
3. Accordingly, upon hearing the counsel for the parties, vide judgement
dated 14.02.2012, the Division Bench, sustained the Single Judge's
judgement qua sub-head 12 and reversed his finding with respect to sub-
head 23 of part IV of claim no. 8. Consequent thereto, the appellant was
entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 80,000/-.
4. It is relevant to note at this stage that the respondent i.e. the Delhi
Development Authority (in short the DDA) had also preferred an appeal
against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 19.04.2005. That
appeal, which was numbered as: FAO(OS) No. 297/2005, came up for
hearing before a Division Bench different from the one which decided the
appeal from which the present application arises.
4.1 The DDA's appeal was confined to the rate of interest granted by the
learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had granted pre-suit and
pendente lite interest at the rate of 18% per annum, and thus, in effect,
confirmed more or less the rate of interest granted by the arbitrator by
converting the interest rate awarded by him, which was compoundable every
quarter, into an annual rate of interest. The arbitrator had granted interest at
the rate of 12% per annum compounded quarterly. The Division Bench,
however, vide its judgement dated 26.02.2007 scaled down the interest to
13% per annum.
5. Coincidently, the Execution Petition no. 389/2012 filed by the
appellant, was also placed before one of us (Rajiv Shakdher, J.) for hearing.
By an order dated 08.09.2014, a direction was issued for the release of the
principal amount of Rs. 80,000/- as, admittedly, that amount was payable to
the appellant.
5.1 In the objections filed to the Execution Petition, the DDA, had taken
two objections. First, with regard to payment of interest on the principal
sum of Rs. 80,000; and second, with respect to payment of interest on
interest.
6. The record would show that the claim for interest was preferred as a
separate claim which, as indicated above, the learned arbitrator granted in
favour of the appellant at the rate indicated in the award. The learned Single
Judge sustained this claim.
7. Therefore, in our view, the appellant is right in contending that it
should be awarded interest on the principal sum of Rs. 80,000/-. It would be
relevant to note that in so far as the Division Bench [hearing FAO(OS)
183/2005], was concerned, it sustained the judgement of the learned Single
Judge dated 19.04.2005. The appeal was confined only to two claims, as
indicated hereinabove.
7.1 The direction issued by the learned Single Judge with regard to
interest was neither altered nor could have been altered by the Division
Bench in the appeal; which was, as adverted to above, an appeal preferred
by the contractor.
7.2 As regards the objection with regard to interest, that was dealt with by
the judgement dated 26.02.2007 passed by another Division Bench, in the
appeal [bearing no. FAO(OS) 297/2005], preferred by the DDA.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we clarify that the appellant would be
entitled to interest at the rate of 13% per annum. Since, the principal sum of
Rs. 80,000/- was directed to be released by the executing court, the interest
on Rs. 80,000/- will run till the date of release of money to the appellant.
9. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Parties will,
however, bear their own costs.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
OCTOBER 06, 2015
kk
