JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This revision is directed against order dated 24.8.2011 passed by Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur in Execution case No. 1 of 2010 Madnani Construction v. Union of India. 2. The only point involved in this revision is as to whether respondent decree holder is entitled to interest or not. 3. Through execution application on which impugned order was passed, respondent had sought recovery of Rs. 58,19,677/- and interest till 22.2.2010 and further interest till date of payment. 4. Earlier an award was given by the Arbitrator on 13.4.1992 in favour of the respondent against the applicant. 5. The respondent had filed an application under Section 20 of the Old Arbitration Act before the J.S.C.C., Gorakhpur for appointment of arbitrator. The J.S.C.C. through order dated 31.5.1991 appointed Shri B.N.Shukla as arbitrator. The arbitrator gave the award on 13.4.1992 copy of which is Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application in this revision. Thereafter respondent contractor filed an application under Section 17 of the Act for pronouncing judgment and making decree according to the award. The Railways (Union of India) filed Application under Section 30/33 of the Act for setting aside the award. They also filed objections against the application of the contractor. Ultimately the Court below through order dated 1.12.1992 pronounced the judgment according to the award. True copy of the said judgment and decree is Annexure-2 to the affidavit. 6. Thereafter matter was brought to this Court in the form of First Appeal From Order No. 40 of 1993 Madnani Construction v. Union of India, which was decided by a Division Bench on 29.4.2003. The last para of the said judgment i.e. para-46 is quoted below : “In view of our conclusion this FAFO is partly allowed. Let the decree be made only in respect of item No. 9(a) (Rs.7,657), 9(d) (Rs.47,553.07) and item Nos. 11(b) (Rs.10,800) of clause 2 of the award (Total Rs. 65,990.07). The contractor will also be entitled to interest at the Bank rate on this amount 9 as awarded by the Court below) from the date of decree i.e. 1.12.1992 till actual payment. As the appeal is partly allowed, the parties will bear their cost throughout.” 7. Against the order passed by the High Court matter was carried to the Supreme Court. As the appeal is partly allowed, the parties will bear their cost throughout.” 7. Against the order passed by the High Court matter was carried to the Supreme Court. The Special leave petition was converted into Civil Appeal No. 8385 of 2004 and was allowed on 7.12.2009. True copy of the judgment is Annexure-3 to the affidavit. It is also in M/s. Madnani Constructions Corporation(P) Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2010 SC 383 . Last sentence of last but one paragraph of the Supreme Court Judgment is quoted below : “The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the award is upheld. The appeal is allowed.” 8. The argument before the Court below was that the Supreme Court approved the award and the Arbitrator in the award dated 13.4.1992 had directed the Union of India to pay to the contractor amount of about Rs. 4.48 lacs alongwith compoundable Bank interest thereupon as under. “That defendant will pay the claimant contractor as per present Bank interest (compoundable) on Rs. 4,48,873.22 from the date 16.11.1983 onward to 21.3.1992 alongwith the amount of principal award.” Operative portion of order of the Court below dated 1.12.1992 is quoted below: “On the aforesaid discussion award 100 A is made Rule of the Court and the claim of the plaintiff is allowed with cost. Decree to be prepared accordingly. From the date of the award to the date of payment the rate of interest on the bank loan be payable” 9. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 25 to 55 discused the question of interest thoroughly and held that while making the award Rule of the Court, the Court could grant interest from that date till actual payment. 10. Actually the main rather the sole argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that after the date of the award no interest was payable. The argument is not tenable. The Supreme Court categorically held that under the old Arbitration Act 1940 interest after the award could be directed to be paid. 11. However, I find that the calculation of interest by the Court below in the impugned order is clearly erroneous probably for the reason that without mentioning the word compound interest, it has applied compound interest after the date of its main order dated 1.12.1992. 11. However, I find that the calculation of interest by the Court below in the impugned order is clearly erroneous probably for the reason that without mentioning the word compound interest, it has applied compound interest after the date of its main order dated 1.12.1992. In the last paragraph before the operative portion in the impugned order dated 24.8.2011 it has been mentioned that “on the remaining amount of Rs. 2,37,318.90 decree holder is entitled to 13% interest from 28.9.1993 to the date of filing of execution application i.e. 25.2.2010 amounting to Rs. 16,38,854.82 (total Rs. 1876153.72) and on the total amount compound interest is payable since 26.2.2010.” Period from 28.9.1993 to 25.2.2010 comes to 16½ years rounded off to 17 years. 17 x 13 = 221 221% of 2.37 lacs comes to 5.24 lacs. 2.37 + 5.24 comes to Rs. 7,61,000/- hence this is the amount paybele till 25.2.2010. Even after 25.2.2010 simple interest @ of Rs. 13 % per year is to be charged upon the remaining amount of Rs. 237318.90. Neither in the award nor in the order or the Court below dated 1.12.1992 making the award Rule of the Court nor in the judgment of the Supreme Court it was held that after the date of the award compound interest shall be payable. 12. I hold that by virtue of judgment dated 1.12.1992, after the award only 13% simple interest is payable. 13. Accordingly, revision is allowed in part. It is held that from 28.9.1993 applicant Union of India/Railway is liable to pay 13% simple interest on the amount of Rs. 2,37,318.90 till actual payment. —————