Rajasthan High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Smt Jadav Devi on 1 March, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13324/2017
1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi -110011
2. Defence Estate Officer, G-12, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur
3. N.C.C. Directorate, D-56, S. M. S. Road, Jaipur, Presently
At D-87, Meera Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur
----Petitioners-Respondent-Judgment-Debtors
Versus
Smt. Jadav Devi W/o Late Shri Chouth Mal Gupta, Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Jugal Kishore Dangayach, 903,
Baba Harish Chandra Marg, Chand Pole Bazar, Jaipur
----Non-petitioner-Claimant/Applicant-Decree-Holder
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga with
Mr. Hitesh Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
01/03/2021
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the orders dated 24.04.2017 and
05.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3,
Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in execution application No.06/2008,
Jadav Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
The facts in brief are that the sole Arbitrator has, vide its
award dated 29.09.2007, while allowing the claim petition filed by
the respondent-decree holder, directed as under:-
"In the result it is held that claimant is entitled
to get vacant possession of the premises. The
respondents have been giving different dates for
vacating the premises since 30.6.2004. However in
(2 of 4) [CW-13324/2017]
the interest of justice three months time is granted
from the date of this Award, to the respondents to
hand over the vacant possession of the premises to
the claimant. The respondents shall pay the
enhanced monthly rent of Rs.27,600/- w.e.f. 1.7.94
to 30.6.99 and Rs.30,360/- from 1.7.99 to 30.6.94
(correct date is 30.06.2004) and there after,
alongwith arrears of rent, till the premises are
vacated and possession is handed over to the
claimant. However if the payment of rent and arrears
is not made within three months, the respondents
shall be liable to pay 18% interest on the same."
On failure of the petitioners to comply with the award, the
respondent filed execution application, wherein, the learned
Executing Court, vide its order impugned dated 05.11.2016,
assessed the interest payable on rent/arrears of rent with interest
@ 18% per annum from 01.07.1994. The order has been affirmed
by the learned Executing Court vide its order dated 24.04.2017.
Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the learned Executing Court erred in
awarding interest on rent/arrears of rent from 01.07.1994;
whereas, as per the terms of award, she was entitled for interest
from the date of award only. Referring the provisions of Section
31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity,
"the Act of 1996"), learned counsel submitted that such direction
is in conflict with the mandate of law and is not sustainable. He
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in
case of Ghulam Mohammad Dar Vs. State of J & K and Ors.,
(2008) 1 SCC 422, in support of his submissions.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supporting the
findings recorded by the learned Executing Court, submitted that
it has committed no error in awarding interest from 01.07.1994 on
(3 of 4) [CW-13324/2017]
failure of the petitioners to honour the terms of award. He,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
It is undisputed that the award directs payment of interest
only if the petitioners failed to pay the rent/arrears of rent within
three moths from the date of award.
Section 31(7) of the Act of 1996 reads as under:-
"7(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties,
where and in so far as an arbitral award is for the
payment of money, the arbitral tribunal may include
in the sum for which the award is made interest, at
such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or
any part of the money, for the whole or any part of
the period between the date on which the cause of
action arose and the date on which the award is
made.
(b) A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral
award shall, unless the award otherwise directs,
carry interest at the rate of two per cent. higher
than the current rate of interest prevalent on the
date of award, from the date of award to the date of
payment.
Explanation:-The expression "current rate of
interest" shall have the same meaning as assigned
to it under Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Interest
Act, 1978."
The learned Arbitrator has awarded interest in terms of
Section 31(7)(b) and not in terms of sub-Clause(a) of Section
31(7) of the Act of 1996. In these circumstances, the respondent
cannot be held entitled for interest on the rent/arrears for the pre-
award period. Acceptance of the plea of the respondent would
amount to re-writing the award, which is impermissible. In these
circumstance, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated
24.04.2017 and 05.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional
(4 of 4) [CW-13324/2017]
District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in execution
application No.06/2008, Jadav Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors. are
set aside. The learned Executing Court is directed to re-assess the
amount payable to the respondent in terms of award dated
29.09.2007.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/80
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
