Punjab-Haryana High Court
Managing Director, Punjab State Civil ... vs M/S Jai Durga Rice Mills Faridkot And Ors on 13 March, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037839
2024:PHHC:037839
CR-8855-2015
-1-
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-8855-2015
Date of decision:-13.03.2024
Managing Director, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and
anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
M/s Jai Durga Rice Mills and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. By way of present revision petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, petitioners have impugned order dated
01.08.2015, Annexure P1, passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Ferozepur, whereby objections filed by the JDs- respondents
have been accepted and the interest rate has been reduced.
2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners
entered into an agreement dated 17.10.1996 with respondent No.1 for
custom milling of paddy for crop year 1996-97. A dispute arose between
the parties, which was referred to an Arbitrator for adjudication. An
award dated 26.05.2003 was passed in favour of the petitioners for
Rs.6,41,066/- besides interest @ 21% per annum. Objections filed by
the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037839
2024:PHHC:037839
CR-8855-2015
Act, 1996 (for short - 'the Act') were rejected by learned Additional
District Judge, Ferozepur by judgment dated 06.12.2006. Petitioners
preferred a petition for executing award dated 26.05.2003. Objections
were filed by the JD - respondents, which have been accepted by the
Executing Court by impugned order, Annexure P1, and the rate of
interest granted on the awarded amount has been reduced from 21% per
annum to 6% per annum.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the interest @
21% per annum was granted by the Arbitrator in terms of the agreement
between the parties and the Executing Court has committed an illegality
by reducing it.
4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioners.
5. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
Similar was the position on the previous two occasions.
6. An award passed by the Arbitrator under the provisions of
the Act is deemed to be a decree and it has to be executed as it is under
Section 36 of the Act, moreso when objections preferred thereagainst
have been rejected. The Executing Court does not have the jurisdiction
to go behind the decree. By taking a view that the interest awarded is
excessive, the Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by reducing
the rate of interest. Reliance placed by the Executing Court upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corpn. Versus Indag Rubber Ltd. (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 700
is misplaced. A perusal of para No.9 of the judgment of the Apex Court
shows that the Supreme Court had reduced the interest rate keeping in
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037839
2024:PHHC:037839
CR-8855-2015
view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. The ratio of
the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In
view thereof, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court cannot
be sustained.
7. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, impugned order
Annexure P1 is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Executing Court,
which shall re-decide the objections filed by the respondents in
accordance with law after hearing the parties and taking into
consideration the arbitral award.
8. Revision Petition is disposed of.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on
10.05.2024.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
13.03.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037839
3 of 3
