Jharkhand High Court
M/S Matchi (Mateti) Engineering ... vs Vrs on 18 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 210 of 2021
M/s Matchi (Mateti) Engineering and Contractor ............Petitioner
Vrs.
Uranium Corporation of India Limited .......... Opposite Party
With
C.M.P. No. 50 of 2021
Uranium Corporation of India Limited ............Petitioner
Vrs.
M/s Matchi (Mateti) Engineering and Contractor .......... Opposite Party
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner/ O.P. : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P./Petitioner : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate (UCIL)
: Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
08/18.11.2022 The C.M.P. No. 201 of 2021 seeks correction of the decree dated
17.03.2021 prepared pursuant to the judgment passed in Civil Review
No. 95 of 2019 dated 29.01.2021. The civil review was directed against
the Appeal from Original Decree i.e. Arbitration Appeal No. 7 of 2003,
which was decided on 01.11.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the judgment
rendered in Arbitration Appeal No. 7 of 2003 or Civil Review No. 95 of
2019, the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge-I Ghatshila in
Title Suit No. 9 of 1998, so far as it related to award of interest @ 18%
from 07.11.1995 i.e., date of submission of application for making the
award rule of the Court till the decree prepared by the learned Court
dated 23.05.2003, has not been disturbed. However, pursuant to the
decision rendered by the appellate court in appeal from the original
decree i.e., Arbitration Appeal No. 7 of 2003 and the judgment dated
29.01.2021 passed in Civil Review No. 95 of 2019, the decree prepared
by the Office dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure-3) does not give effect to the
interest of 18% awarded by the learned Trial Court from 07.11.1995 till
23.05.2003 @ 18%. In view of the liberty granted by this Court in the
review judgment dated 29.01.2021, the present application has been
made under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for
amendment / correction of the decree redrawn and signed on 17.03.2021
in terms of the appeal judgment and the civil review judgment.
Learned counsel for the opposite party Uranium Corporation of
India Limited (UCIL) in the instant CMP has referred to the procedure
prescribed under Chapter XIII of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. It is
submitted that at the time of preparation of decree, parties or their
pleader are allowed opportunity to file objection to the draft decree if
there is a clerical error or omission in the judgment or that the decree is
not in accordance with the judgment. It does not appear that the office
has complied with the aforesaid procedure before preparation of final
decree. Learned counsel for the Opposite party UCIL submits by
referring to the operating portion at para 15 of the judgment dated
01.11.2018 passed in Arbitration Appeal No. 7 of 2003 that this Court
taking note of the fact that there were no materials on record as to what
was the prevalent rate of interest at the time the award was passed,
proceeded to hold that the principal amount of Rs.10,82,203.21 as
adjudged under the award should carry interest @ 10% per annum from
the date of decree till it is paid, meaning thereby that the award of
interest @ 18% right from the date of reference on 07.11.1995 till it is to
be paid by the judgment debtor was modified by the appellate Court. As
such, there is no ground for seeking correction of the decree dated
17.03.2021.
Office to report whether the procedure prescribed under Rule 103
to 108 under Chapter XIII of the Jharkhand High Court Rules have been
followed before preparation of the decree in question.
Matter be listed on 02.12.2022.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A.Mohanty
