Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1869 (DEL)

G. D. Tewari & Co. v. Delhi Development Authority

2015-10-06

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, RAJIV SHAKDHER

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Shakdher, J. 1. This is an application which seeks clarification of the judgment dated 14.02.2012, passed by the Division Bench (as then constituted), of which one of us (Rajiv Shakdher, J), was a member. The said judgment was passed in an appeal preferred by the contractor. 1.1 Noticing the aforesaid position, the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir (as he then was) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri, vide order dated 07.11.2014 referred the matter to a Bench of which one of us (Rajiv Shakdher, J.) was to be a member. 1.2 This is how the matter has been placed before this Bench. 2. The Division Bench vide judgment dated 14.02.2012 dealt with two claims of the appellant. These being: sub-heads 12 and 23 of part IV of claim No. 8, concerning extra items. 2.1 Pertinently, the Division Bench noted that the appellant itself had confined the appeal to the aforesaid claims, at the very first hearing held in the appeal, on 05.07.2005. 3. Accordingly, upon hearing the counsel for the parties, vide judgment dated 14.02.2012, the Division Bench, sustained the Single Judge’s judgment qua sub-head 12 and reversed his finding with respect to sub-head 23 of part IV of claim No. 8. Consequent thereto, the appellant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. 4. It is relevant to note at this stage that the respondent i.e. the Delhi Development Authority (in short the DDA) had also preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.04.2005. That appeal, which was numbered as FAO (OS) No. 297/2005, came up for hearing before a Division Bench different from the one which decided the appeal from which the present application arises. 4.1 The DDA’s appeal was confined to the rate of interest granted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had granted pre-suit and pendente lite interest at the rate of 18% per annum, and thus, in effect, confirmed more or less the rate of interest granted by the arbitrator by converting the interest rate awarded by him, which was compoundable every quarter, into an annual rate of interest. The arbitrator had granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum compounded quarterly. The Division Bench, however, vide its judgment dated 26.02.2007 scaled down the interest to 13% per annum. 5. The arbitrator had granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum compounded quarterly. The Division Bench, however, vide its judgment dated 26.02.2007 scaled down the interest to 13% per annum. 5. Coincidently, the Execution Petition No. 389/2012 filed by the appellant, was also placed before one of us (Rajiv Shakdher, J.) for hearing. By an order dated 08.09.2014, a direction was issued for the release of the principal amount of Rs. 80,000/- as, admittedly, that amount was payable to the appellant. 5.1 In the objections filed to the Execution Petition, the DDA, had taken two objections. First, with regard to payment of interest on the principal sum of Rs. 80,000 and second, with respect to payment of interest on interest. 6. The record would show that the claim for interest was preferred as a separate claim which, as indicated above, the learned arbitrator granted in favour of the appellant at the rate indicated in the award. The learned Single Judge sustained this claim. 7. Therefore, in our view, the appellant is right in contending that it should be awarded interest on the principal sum of Rs. 80,000/-. It would be relevant to note that in so far as the Division Bench [hearing FAO (OS) 183/2005], was concerned, it sustained the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.04.2005. The appeal was confined only to two claims, as indicated hereinabove. 7.1 The direction issued by the learned Single Judge with regard to interest was neither altered nor could have been altered by the Division Bench in the appeal; which was, as adverted to above, an appeal preferred by the contractor. 7.2 As regards the objection with regard to interest, that was dealt with by the judgment dated 26.02.2007 passed by another Division Bench, in the appeal [bearing No. FAO (OS) 297/2005], preferred by the DDA. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we clarify that the appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 13% per annum. Since, the principal sum of Rs. 80,000/- was directed to be released by the executing court, the interest on Rs. 80,000/- will run till the date of release of money to the appellant. 9. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Parties will, however, bear their own costs.