Jharkhand High Court
M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs M/S Annapurna Construction on 15 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:11342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P. No. 879 of 2022
----
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its HOD (Legal) namely, Ved
Prakash, aged about 56 years, son of late Radhe Krishna Prasad, having
its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koylanagar, P.S.Koylanagar, District
Dhanbad, Jharkhand ...... .... ... Petitioner(s)/Judgment Debtor
-- Versus --
M/s Annapurna Construction, through its Partner, having its office J.C.
Mallik Road, Hirapur, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, Town and District Dhanbad,
Jharkhand ...... ..... ......Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
For the Opposite Party(s) : Mr. P.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, Advocate
----
20/15.04.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well
as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent/Opposite
party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
for setting aside the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division) -II, Dhanbad in Execution Case No.29 of 2014.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
the petitioner and the sole opposite party have entered into a contract for
construction of 140 numbers of temporary hutments and the estimated cost of
which was to the tune of Rs.49,45,447.81 and thereafter a formal work order
was issued to the opposite party and in terms of the agreement, the entire
work was to be completed within four months. The formal contract was entered
into for the aforesaid work between the parties which was also containing the
arbitration clause. The said contract was not completed within time and request
was made for extension of time and that was also granted by the petitioner and
the dispute has further arose between the parties and for that the arbitration
2025:JHHC:11342
clause has been invoked and the opposite party has raised the claim of
Rs.55,01,640.66 and the petitioner herein has also raised counter claim of
Rs.28,47,860.57. The learned Arbitrator has passed the Award on 13.07.1994 to
the tune of Rs.18,97,729.37 with interest @ 18 % per annum in favour of the
opposite party, however, the counter claim of the petitioner herein has been
rejected by learned Arbitrator which was challenged before the Subordinate
Judge, Dhanbad in Title (Arbitration) Suit No.109 of 1994 for being made a rule
of the Court in terms of section 14 of Arbitration Act, 1940. In the said
proceeding, the petitioner has filed objection under section 15, 16, 30 and 33 of
the Arbitration Act, 1940 which was rejected by the order dated 03.06.1995
passed by the learned Subordinate Judge)-IV, Dhanbad in Title (Arbitration) Suit
No.109 of 1994. The opposite party has filed Execution Case No.6 of 1995 in
the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-IV, Dhanbad which is still
pending. She further submits that against the order dated 03.06.1995 passed in
Title (Arbitration) Suit No.109 of 1994 the petitioner has preferred M.A. No.169
of 1995(R) and in the said case, Civil Revision has also been preferred before
the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi which was registered as
Civil Revision No.12 of 1996(R) and the M.A. No.169 of 1995(R) and Civil
Revision No.12 of 1996(R) were heard together and the said civil revision was
allowed by the judgment dated 29.04.1997 whereas the aforesaid appeal was
disposed of. The civil revision was filed for interest against the first Award which
was allowed.
4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment passed by the High Court the
petitioner herein has moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
Nos.5647-48 of 1997. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the judgment dated
29.08.2003 disposed of observing therein as under:
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires
reconsideration. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and particularly keeping in view the fact that the matter relates to pure
2025:JHHC:11342
interpretation of document, which gives rise to question of law and instead
and in place of remitting the matter to the named arbitrator, we would
direct that the disputes in relation to claim item nos.3,7 and 11 be referred
to Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Prasad, a retired Judge of the Jharkhand High
Court on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by
the parties. The learned arbitrator is requested to consider the desirability
of making his award as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the fact
that the mater has been pending for a long time.
These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent. No costs."
5. She submits that after remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the
dispute with regard to claim nos. 3, 7 and 11 was reconsidered by Mr. Justice
D.N. Prasad, retired and by the Award dated 02.09.2005 has allowed interest at
the rate of 12 % per annum over the awarded amount in claim nos.7 and 11
only till the date of payment to the claimant/respondent-Opposite party. She
submits that the said Award was challenged before the learned Subordinate
Judge-I, Dhanbad in Title (Arbitration) Suit No.109 of 1994 which was dismissed
by the judgment dated 13.05.2010 and the objection filed by the petitioner
against the Award dated 02.09.2005 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator has
been rejected and the said Award was made rule of the Court directing the
Office to prepare decree accordingly and the decree was signed on 22.5.2010.
She submits that the said judgment dated 13.05.2010 was challenged in
Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2010 which was dismissed by the order dated
09.12.2019. The petitioner has again moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India challenging the Award dated 09.12.2019 passed in Arbitration Appeal
No.9 of 2010 which was dismissed by order dated 12.2.2022 and thereafter
there is Execution Case No.29 of 2014. She submits that the dispute is there
with regard to interest and there is Execution Case No.29 of 2014. She submits
that the dispute is with regard to interest in view of second Award with regard
to item nos.7 and 11. She submits that in the second Award only two items
have been allowed being item nos.7 and 11 with interest @ 12 % per annum
over the awarded amount till the date of payment. She submits that from which
date the interest will be payable that is not there in the award and in view of
2025:JHHC:11342
that the sole opposite party is only entitled for interest from the date of said
Award, i.e., 02.09.2005. She submits that however the learned executing court
has interpreted the same and directed to pay the interest with effect from the
year 1988 when the first Award was drawn. She submits that the learned
executing court has wrongly interpreted the second Award and directed to pay
the interest with effect from 1988 on item nos.7 and 11 also. She submits that
in view of that the order of executing court is not correct.
6. Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the sole Opposite party submits that the learned Arbitrator after
remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already granted the interest at the
rate of 12 % per annum which was challenged before the High Court and the
High Court has dismissed the same and against that the SLP has been preferred
which has further been dismissed. He submits that in light of the dismissal by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court the grounds taken by the petitioner herein deemed
to be there and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not entertained the same and in
view of that the learned executing court has rightly passed the said order.
7. It is an admitted position that the dispute arose and pursuant to
that arbitration clause has been invoked. The learned first Arbitrator has passed
the Award which has been made a rule of the Court in light of section 14 by the
learned court and the interest part has been challenged by the sole respondent
in Civil Revision and the M.A was preferred against the said Award by the
petitioner herein and the M.A and the Civil Revision have been disposed by the
Court and the Civil Revision was allowed by the High Court with regard to the
interest and the M.A has been disposed of. Against that, the petitioner herein
has moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
after hearing remanded the matter to decide the issue nos.3,7 and 11 and
pursuant to that, the learned Arbitrator has decided the same and claim no.3
was not allowed, however, the item nos.7 and 11 was allowed and the interest
2025:JHHC:11342
@ 12 % per annum over the awarded amount. However, in the Award it is
specifically not disclosed as to from what date the interest will be payable.
Interest is already granted by the first Award which was the subject matter in
M.A and Civil Revision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The second Award
has further been challenged in Arbitration appeal No.9 of 2010 which has been
dismissed by the High Court by the judgment dated 09.12.2019 and the High
Court has taken note of the fact that the loss and profit aspect has been taken
care of in the Award and dismissed the said Arbitration Appeal and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further dismissed the same challenge in S.L.P. being Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2361 of 2021. Thus, the grounds taken by the
petitioner herein are deemed to be there which has been affirmed up to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. A person deprived of the use of money to which he is
legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by
any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This basic
consideration is as valid for the period the dispute is pending before the
arbitrator as it is for the period prior to the arbitrator entering upon the
reference. Further, the contract did not prohibit the Award of interest with
respect to delayed payment.
8. In view of above, considering that the matter has been finally
settled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no interference is required in the
impugned order dated 20.09.2022. The learned executing court has only
interpreted the Award and this can be done by the learned executing court and
there is no illegality in the same.
9. As such, C.M.P. No.879 of 2022 is dismissed.
10. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,A.F.R.
