JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - This is revision petition filed by State of Haryana (in short, the State) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail judgment dated 27.03.2008 (Annexure II) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. 2. Respondent No.1-M/s. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited (A Govt. of India undertaking) (in short, the Company) executed work of the petitioner-State. There was dispute between the parties. The dispute was referred to respondent No.2-Arbitrator who gave award dated 26.11.1999 awarding Rs.61.37 lacs to be paid by petitioner to respondent No.1 less Rs.5.32 lacs awarded to the petitioner. 3. Respondent No.1 filed application for making the award as rule of the Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short, the Act) along with interest @ 24% per annum whereas petitioner State filed objections under Section 30 of the Act for setting aside the award. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal vide judgment dated 01.03.2007 dismissed the objection petition filed by State and allowed the application made by respondent No.1 and made the award as rule of the Court. 4. State of Haryana preferred appeal against judgment of the trial Court whereas respondent No.1 filed cross-objections in the said appeal claiming future interest on the awarded amount from the date of decree till recovery. Learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2008 dismissed the appeal as well as the cross-objections. Feeling aggrieved, State has filed this revision petition. 5. Respondent No.1 has also filed CR No.2101 of 2010 claiming future interest on the awarded amount @ 24% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. The said revision petition shall also stand disposed of by this common order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioner-State contended that the award can be set aside even on merits under Section 30 of the Act. The contention cannot be accepted. The award can be set aside under Section 30 of the Act on limited grounds i.e. Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings or the award has been made after supersession of the arbitration proceedings or after the arbitration proceedings became invalid or the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. The contention cannot be accepted. The award can be set aside under Section 30 of the Act on limited grounds i.e. Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings or the award has been made after supersession of the arbitration proceedings or after the arbitration proceedings became invalid or the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. In the instant case, the petitioner- State filed objections under Section 30 of the Act to challenge the award mainly on merits. However, arbitration award cannot be challenged on merits. Counsel for petitioner-State relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan and another versus Ferro Concrete Construction Private Limited, (2009) 12 Supreme Court cases 1. However, in that case, the award was not set aside on merits but it was held that if award is passed on ‘no evidence’, then it amounts to legal misconduct. In that case, award was passed only on the basis of claim statement without any evidence. Thus in that case, it was not laid down that Arbitrator’s award can be set aside on merits, rather it was laid down that passing of award on the basis of ‘no evidence’ is misconduct within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act. In the instant case, however, the award is not passed on ‘no evidence’. Consequently the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan (supra) has no applicability to the instant case. 8. Both the courts below have discussed in detail the objections raised by the State and have arrived at concurrent finding against the State. There is no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in impugned judgments of the Courts below in this regard so as to call for interference by this Court at the instance of State of Haryana by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly CR No. 5832 of 2008 filed by the State of Haryana is devoid of merit. 9. Now coming to CR No.2101 of 2010, counsel for the Company contended that under Section 29 of the Act, Court has discretion to award future interest from the date of decree of trial Court till recovery and there is no reason to decline the same to the Company. 9. Now coming to CR No.2101 of 2010, counsel for the Company contended that under Section 29 of the Act, Court has discretion to award future interest from the date of decree of trial Court till recovery and there is no reason to decline the same to the Company. It was pointed out that the trial Court did not advert to the aforesaid claim of the Company whereas the lower Appellate Court rejected the same without assigning any reason. 10. On the other hand, counsel for State contended that future interest cannot exceed 6% per annum in view of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC). It was also contended that the lower Appellate Court has exercised its discretion by declining to grant future interest and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 11. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Under Section 29 of the Act, discretion has been given to the Court to grant future interest from the date of decree till recovery at such rate as the Court deems reasonable. Thus award of future interest as well as rate thereof has been left to the discretion of the Court. In the instant case, the trial Court did not adjudicate upon the claim of the Company regarding future interest at all whereas the lower Appellate Court declined the same without assigning any reason. On the other hand, ordinarily in case of money decree, future interest should also be awarded unless there is some special or exceptional circumstance to deny the same. In the instant case, there is no special or exceptional reason or circumstance to deny the relief of future interest to the Company. On the other hand, the Company has been deprived of the decreetal amount and, therefore, should be compensated by awarding future interest also at reasonable rate. 12. As regards rate of interest, Section 34 CPC, which limits the future rate of interest to 6% per annum in the case of non-commercial transaction, is not applicable to this case because Section 29 of the Act specifically empowers the Court to award future interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable, without fixing any lower or upper limit. Consequently, future interest has to be awarded at such rate as the Court deems reasonable, without any fetters of upper or lower limits. 13. Consequently, future interest has to be awarded at such rate as the Court deems reasonable, without any fetters of upper or lower limits. 13. In the instant case, keeping in view all the circumstances and also the fact that amount has to be paid by State of Haryana whereas the Company is Government of India undertaking, I deem it reasonable to award future interest @ 9% per annum on the decretal amount from date of decree of the trial Court till recovery. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Resultantly CR No. 5832 of 2008 filed by State of Haryana is dismissed whereas CR No.2101 of 2010 filed by the Company is allowed to the extent indicated hereinbefore. ---------0.B.S.0------------ Ricky Ahuja v. State of Punjab 2012(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2282 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar CRM No. M-5899 of 2012 Ricky Ahuja v. State of Punjab & Anr. {Decided on 02/07/2012} For the Petitioners: Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: Mr. C.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. For the Respondent No.2: Mr. A.K. Lamdharia, Advocate. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Cruelty to Wife--Complaint filed after 58 days of solemnization of marriage--However, parties compromised the matter on payment of amount & return of articles and also above applied for divorce by mutual consent--Bail granted--Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406 & 498-A. (Para 9) JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - As the above indicated petitions have arisen out of the same FIR/case, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of facts. 2. Having exercised and lost their right in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, petitioners Ricky Ahuja (husband), Mohinder Ahuja (father-inlaw) and Sonia Ahuja married (sister-in-law) of complainant Neha Ahuja, have directed the present applications for anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 3. Concisely, the prosecution case is that the marriage of complainant Neha Ahuja was solemnized with petitioner Ricky Ahuja on 12.10.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Amritsar. Her parents were stated to have given dowry articles, but the petitioners were not satisfied. They demanded more dowry articles. 4. 3. Concisely, the prosecution case is that the marriage of complainant Neha Ahuja was solemnized with petitioner Ricky Ahuja on 12.10.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Amritsar. Her parents were stated to have given dowry articles, but the petitioners were not satisfied. They demanded more dowry articles. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that she was treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry by the petitioners-accused. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the instant case was registered against the petitioners, by way of FIR, bearing No.442 dated 9.12.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present applications for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that the marriage between Ricky Ahuja and Neha Ahuja was performed only on 12.10.2011 and the instant case was registered against the petitioners-accused on 9.12.2011 i.e. about 58 days after the solemnization of their marriage. 7. During the pendency of the present applications, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their dispute before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, by means of compromise deed/agreement dated 29.5.2012, which, in substance, is as under:- 1. That Ricky Ahuja who is husband of Neha Ahuja hereinafter is called the first party. 2. That Neha Ahuja who is wife of Ricky Ahuja hereinafter is called the second party. 3. That first party and second party have agreed to live separately. 4. That first party and second party will file a mutual consent divorce and no party will object to it. It has been mutually agreed between the parties that both the parties will reach at Mohali Court on 05.06.2012 at 10.00 a.m. 5. 3. That first party and second party have agreed to live separately. 4. That first party and second party will file a mutual consent divorce and no party will object to it. It has been mutually agreed between the parties that both the parties will reach at Mohali Court on 05.06.2012 at 10.00 a.m. 5. That first party agrees to pay a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs only) to the second party in the Court of District Judge at the time of grant of decree of mutual consent divorce (statutory period of six months). 6. That first party further agrees to hand over the dowry articles including jewellery (gold rings and ear rings) to the father-in-law and sister-in-law of second party and one Diamond ring given to the first party. It has further been agreed between the parties that first party will hand over the said articles on 05.06.2012 at Mohali Court and the second party will give a receipt of the said articles. 7. That second party will withdraw all civil and criminal cases pending in different Courts against the first party. It is not worthy to mention here that this is one time settlement and second party will not claim any maintenance from the first party in future. 8. That both the parties are completely satisfied with the aforesaid compromise and will not launch any civil/criminal case against each other in future. 9. That both the parties have agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the present agreement. 10.That the matter has been mutually, amicably and voluntarily settled between the parties through the process of mediation without any undue influence, pressure or misrepresentation and the parties hereby agree and undertake to abide by the aforesaid terms and conditions and not to raise any dispute, whatsoever, in the matter in future. 8. It is not a matter of dispute that the parties have filed a joint divorce petition to dissolve their marriage, by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in pursuance of the pointed compromise. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant applications for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. 8. It is not a matter of dispute that the parties have filed a joint divorce petition to dissolve their marriage, by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in pursuance of the pointed compromise. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant applications for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. It is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 10. Needless to state that if the petitioners do not cooperate/join the investigation or violate any terms and conditions of the indicated compromise deed/agreement, then the State/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their anticipatory bail, in this relevant connection. ---------0.B.S.0------------