Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1628 (RAJ)

Union of India v. M/s Maheshwari Enterprises

2015-09-04

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') have been partly allowed. 2. On account of dispute between the parties, the matter was referred for arbitration to the Arbitral Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The Tribunal vide its award dated 07.08.2006 granted certain reliefs to the respondent-claimant. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed objections under Section 34 before the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan. 4. From the contents of the order passed by the trial court, it appears that though several objections were raised regarding the claims awarded by the Tribunal. However, while making submissions, the same was confined to grant of interest by the Tribunal whereby interest at the rate of 15% per annum was awarded. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court by its order dated 11.04.2014, partly accepted the objection and reduced the rate of interest from 15% to 10% relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd v. G. Harishchandra Reddy & Anr : AIR 2007 SCC 817 . 6. In the present appeal also, initially the grounds raised were only limited to the rate of interest as it was claimed that instead of 10%, the District Court should have awarded interest at the rate of 6% only. 7. However, subsequent thereto an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been filed by the appellant, inter alia, seeking to add further grounds in the memo of appeal in order to challenge the award/order of the trial court under various heads. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the award impugned passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the District Court deserve to be set aside, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded sum under various heads and the District Court has wrongly rejected the objections filed by the appellant. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 10. A bare perusal of the order passed by the District Court, as noticed hereinbefore, reveals that several objections were raised in the memo of objection by the appellant before the District Court. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 10. A bare perusal of the order passed by the District Court, as noticed hereinbefore, reveals that several objections were raised in the memo of objection by the appellant before the District Court. However, it appears that during the course of submissions, the arguments were confined to the award of interest by the Tribunal. The said aspect is also fortified from the memo of appeal as originally filed wherein the challenge has been made only to reduction of rate of interest from 15% to 10% and a prayer has been made to reduce it further to 6%. 11. Even in the application filed by the appellant under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the memo of appeal, the submission made is that inadvertently the grounds challenging the award on merits could not be taken, however, there is no submission/ground that the issues were raised, were pressed before the District Court and the same were wrongly not decided by the District Court. 12. The conduct of the appellant in not pressing the other grounds before the District Court; not challenging the same before this Court initially in appeal, clearly shows that the application filed by the appellant under Order 6, Rule 17 vis an after thought only. 13. In view of the fact that only ground pertaining to grant of interest was pressed before the District Court, the application filed by the appellant under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. 14. So far as the award of interest is concerned, the District Court was fully justified in reducing the rate of interest from 15% to 10%. The claim of the appellant that the same should have been reduced to 6%, has no basis, inasmuch as, in the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd (supra) also, the rate of interest was reduced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to 9% only and not to 6%. 15. In view of the above and the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act, no interference is called for. There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******