Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 379 (JK)

R. K. Lakra v. State Of J. &K.

2002-12-05

B.C.PATEL, MUZAFFAR JAN

body2002
Per : Honble Mr. Justice B.C. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is preferred by the original petitioner who moved the arbitration application No. 164/1980, against the order made by the learned Single Judge, accepting the award on 21-12-1998. 2. The dispute centres about the interest and the date from which the amount of interest is required to be paid. In the concluding portion, the learned Single Judge observed as under :--- "As a result the aforesaid discussion, objections filed by the respondent-objector under section 30 and 33 vide No. 359/1983 against the award dated 22nd October, 1982, passed by Shri B.L.Chaku in favour of the non-objector and against the objector-respondents 1 and 2 are hereby dismissed and the award is ordered to be made Rule of the Court, with the modification that the respondents shall be liable for payment of interest from the date of this Judgment till the date of Principal amounts found due and payable by respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner @ 14% p.a. simple. Decree sheet be drawn." 3. Thus, the arguments for the non-objector were not accepted and the award was made Rule of the court. However, in view of the modification about the interest, from the date of the Judgment, at the rate of 14% per annum simple, has given cause to the appellant to file this appeal. 4. There is no dispute that the award in toto has been accepted and the award was made Rule of the Court. Learned Single Judge, on the interest part, considered various Judgments which can be found from page 35 and onward of the paper book as also has discussed about the power of the Arbitrator to award interest for pre-reference period. The learned Single Judge has considered the matter in detail and considered the Judgment of the Apex court in case of Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala v. Abanduta Jema, AIR 1988 SC 1520. The learned Single Judge has specifically considered the question of grant of interest by an Arbitrator pre-reference and pendente lite interest. The learned Single Judge has considered the matter in detail and considered the Judgment of the Apex court in case of Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala v. Abanduta Jema, AIR 1988 SC 1520. The learned Single Judge has specifically considered the question of grant of interest by an Arbitrator pre-reference and pendente lite interest. The learned Single Judge further observed that "Tenor of the objections also indicates that the objectors want this Court to sit as a court of appeal, and then adjudicate the disputes between the parties which is impermissible under the Arbitration Law." The learned Single Judge again observed as under :--- "Again, at the risk of repetition it may be noted that when a reference is made to the impugned award, in the considered view of this Court, it can be said that the Arbitrator has interpreted the contract which was within his power. As a consequence of this, it is further held that the amounts awarded by the Arbitrator by taking a particular view of the terms of agreement as detailed in his award, do not call for interference and this court would not substitute its own decision." 5. Learned Single Judge has also mentioned that the agreement relate to the year 1977. The arbitrator was appointed by the Government on 28-01-1982, who made the award on 22nd October, 1982. If the amount paid as per award and invested in assured Government securities, the same would have multiplied to a larger extent. The Court has expressed the opinion that "the Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the value of money has come down considerably since 1982-83 till date. Thus, it is obvious that the non-objector- petitioner was deprived of the benefit of the amount due which has been found by the Arbitrator in terms of the amount awarded". The learned Single Judge after considering all these aspects held as Under :----- "On this count also, the claim of interest from the date of the award till payment made by the Arbitrator deserves to be upheld". 6. Thus, the learned Single Judge in clear terms observed that the claim of interest as per the award made by the Arbitrator is not required to be disturbed. 6. Thus, the learned Single Judge in clear terms observed that the claim of interest as per the award made by the Arbitrator is not required to be disturbed. However, in the concluding portion with regard to the interest, it is observed that the respondents shall be liable for payment of interest from the date of the Judgment till the amount is paid by respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner at the rate of 14% per annum simple. Thus, learned Single Judge though arrived at a conclusion that claim of interest from the date of award till the amount is paid is not required to be disturbed, yet modified in the later part of the Judgment. With reasons the learned Single Judge has indicated that the interest part of the award is not required to be disturbed and is required to be upheld, it can only be said that in the concluding part, an error has been committed by the learned Single Judge and that error is required to be corrected by stating that the award with regard to the interest is also not required to be interferred with and that is upheld. 7. However, it is pointed out by the Government pleader appearing in the matter that the court disposed of the application on 21-12-1998 and for a pretty long period the present appellant has not bothered to move the Court by preferring an appeal or modification of the order. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the application for modification was made but in view of the fact that the learned Judge who heard the matter came to be transferred, the application was disposed of by another learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal was required to be preferred. 8. Anyway, interest of justice requires that in the instant case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents should not be saddled with the liability for the interest after 21-12-1998 i.e. from the date of Judgment as amount is already deposited. On behalf of respondents, it was submitted that the appellant ought to have approached the court earlier. When the respondents have already deposited the amount earlier, now they should not be saddled with further liability. On behalf of respondents, it was submitted that the appellant ought to have approached the court earlier. When the respondents have already deposited the amount earlier, now they should not be saddled with further liability. There is consensus amongst the advocates appearing for the parties on this aspect, and, therefore, we direct that the amount as awarded by the Arbitrator shall be paid till the date of Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge. The Court is of the opinion that amount of interest as per award shall be paid by respondents to the appellant, and, the respondents are held liable to pay interest till the date of the Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge and not thereafter. The remaining amount, after calculation, shall be deposited atleast within six weeks but not later than eight weeks. 9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.