JUDGMENT : 1. This arbitration appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad in T. (Arbitration) Suit No. 20 of 1989. This application was preferred under Section 15 to be read with Sections 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to convert the award dated 18th December, 1992 passed by the sole Arbitrator into the Rule of the Court. The operative part of the award reads as under: “(i) The Respondent/ M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.8,80,000.00/- (Rupees Eight lakh eighty thousand only) to the claimant. (ii) The above lump sum awarded amount of Rs.8,80,000.00/- (Rupees Eight lakh eighty thousand only) shall carry interest @ 12% (Twelve percent only) per annum with effect from 1.11.1984 till the actual payment or the Decree whichever is earlier.” (emphasis supplied) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.8,80,000/- has been paid by virtue of an order passed by this Court in this arbitration appeal in the year 2004, but, the amount of interest has not yet been paid. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the trial court has decided all the issues raised in T. (Arbitration) Suit No. 20 of 1989 in favour of this appellant. Nonetheless, without assigning any reason the rate of interest has been reduced from 12% to 6%. The date on which the aforesaid amount of award should carry interest @ 12% was 01.11.1984, whereas, the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad has changed the date for granting interest, which has now been fixed as from the date of decree i.e. 02.09.2004 and, therefore, this arbitration appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that no cogent and convincing reasons have been given by the trial court for reduction of rate of interest. Unnecessarily, sympathy has been shown by the trial court in favour of the respondent. There is no question of any sympathy whatsoever arises because once the money is not paid in time, the same has to be updated by payment of interest, otherwise. Money paid, after several years is meaningless, if the interest is not paid thereupon. Interest always updates the money. Even otherwise also, no reasons have been assigned for changing the date i.e. from 01.11.1984 to 02.09.2004. Money paid, after several years is meaningless, if the interest is not paid thereupon. Interest always updates the money. Even otherwise also, no reasons have been assigned for changing the date i.e. from 01.11.1984 to 02.09.2004. This is not permissible because the amount was found due and payable at Rs.8,80,000/- from 01.11.1984 and if the money is paid in the year 2004, it will be much lesser amount and, therefore, interest has to be added in the said amount. Being aggrieved by the order of reduction of rate of interest and change of date of payment of interest, this appeal has been preferred by the original claimant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon following decisions rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court: (a) (1999) 3 SCC 257 ; (b) (2004) 1 SCC 110 ; and (c) (2008) 1 SCC 422 . On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that the interest-awarded by the learned Arbitrator was absolutely just, proper and equitable because the amount due and payable was not paid since 01.11.1984 and it ought not to be reduced by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad without assigning any reasons and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that no error has been committed by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad in reducing the rate of interest and changing the date from which the interest was to be paid. The respondent was a sick company at the relevant time and, hence, looking to this aspect of the matter, the rate of interest has been reduced. So far as the date from which the interest was to be paid, has been correctly changed as the decree was passed on 02.09.2004. The interest ought to be paid after the final decision is given under the Arbitration Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that no error has been committed by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad while passing the order in T. (Arbitration) Suit No. 20 of 1989 as there was no clause of interest. The interest ought not to be paid from 01.11.1984. REASONS : 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that no error has been committed by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad while passing the order in T. (Arbitration) Suit No. 20 of 1989 as there was no clause of interest. The interest ought not to be paid from 01.11.1984. REASONS : 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, an order passed by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad in T. (Arbitration) Suit No. 20 of 1989 is quash and set aside so far as it reduces, the rate of interest, from 12% to 6% and so far as in changing the date from which the interest was to be paid i.e. 01.11.1984 to the date of decree i.e. 02.09.2004 and the order passed by the learned Arbitrator is restored so far as the rate of interest is concerned and so far as payment of interest from 01.11.1984 is concerned for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (a) Agreement was entered into between the parties to this arbitration appeal for construction of 108 units of residential quarters and there was arbitration clause in the agreement. (b) The dispute had arisen between the parties and the matter was referred to sole Arbitrator-Ex. General Manager (Construction), BCCL, Koylanagar, Dhanbad, who passed an award for payment of Rs.8,80,000/- to the applicant, who was the claimant and interest was also awarded @ 12% per annum with effect from 01.11.1984 till the actual payment. This award was given on 18th December, 1992 which is at Annexure1 to the memo of this arbitration appeal. (c) To make Rule of the Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940 especially under Section 15 to be read with Sections 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, an application was preferred by this appellant being T. (Arbitration) Suit No. 20 of 1989 before Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad. (d) The respondent had also filed cross objection to the effect that the rate of interest may be reduced and the date from which the interest is to be paid may also be changed. The Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad has reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 6% and instead of 01.11.1984the date from which the interest was to be paid, was fixed as the date of decree i.e. 02.09.2004. The Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad has reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 6% and instead of 01.11.1984the date from which the interest was to be paid, was fixed as the date of decree i.e. 02.09.2004. (e) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the evidences on record as well as looking to the award passed by the learned Arbitrator and also looking to the judgment passed by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad, it appears that no cogent and convincing reasons have been given by the trial court for reduction of rate of interest from 12% to 6%. The rate of interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator was absolutely just, proper and equitable. The money found due and payable, was not paid from 01.11.1984. Whenever any money claim is allowed, the interest ought to be granted if the payment is not made since long, otherwise, money decree, for any amount, will be of no much value to the plaintiff. In the facts of the present case, from the year 1984, money was not paid. Award was passed in the year 1992 and Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad has passed an order on 20.08.2004. Thus since last 20 years, money was not paid. If only principal amount is permitted to be paid, there will be huge loss to the claimant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad. (f) Similarly, from 01.11.1984 the date from which the interest was to be paid, as per learned Arbitrator, has been altered by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad and is made effective from the date of decree i.e. 02.09.2004. Thus, the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad has passed an order for nonpayment of interest for 20 long years and if any amount is not paid since last 20 years, interest ought to be paid. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad. (g) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Rai & Brothers v. Union of India, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 257 in paragraphs 2 and 5, which read as under: “2. There are four stages of grant of interest. (g) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Rai & Brothers v. Union of India, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 257 in paragraphs 2 and 5, which read as under: “2. There are four stages of grant of interest. Firstly, from the stage of accrual of cause of action till filing of the arbitration proceedings; secondly, during pendency of the proceedings before the arbitrator; thirdly, future interest arising between the date of the award and the date of the decree; and fourthly, interest arising from the date of the decree till realisation of the award. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon several decisions of this Court to state the proposition that such interest could be granted. It is unnecessary to make any detailed reference to them. We think it appropriate to modify the decree of the Court of the Sub-Judge by including a direction for payment of interest @ 12% per annum from the date when the award was made the decree of the Court of the Sub-Judge till realisation. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.” (emphasis supplied) (h) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.L. Gupta Construction (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., reported in (2004) 1 SCC 110 in paragraph 5, which reads as under: “5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, however, is that as the appellant has not made any demand for grant of interest, no interest was payable in terms of the Interest Act, 1978. It was further urged that grant of pendente lite interest being discretionary in terms of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in refusing to exercise the discretion. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, no such case was made out before the arbitrator or before the High Court and secondly, the parties entered into an agreement in terms whereof it was agreed that as regards the delayed payment, the interest @ 1% per month will be paid on the bills that are paid after three months, which comes to 12% per annum. Firstly, no such case was made out before the arbitrator or before the High Court and secondly, the parties entered into an agreement in terms whereof it was agreed that as regards the delayed payment, the interest @ 1% per month will be paid on the bills that are paid after three months, which comes to 12% per annum. The appellant, therefore, was entitled to prereference interest @ 12% per annum. Furthermore, the arbitrator exercised his jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure by grant of pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum. The High Court could not have interfered with the said discretionary order; wherefor no reason was assigned. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice shall be sub-served if the respondent is directed to pay to the appellant the prereference and pendente lite interest @ 10% per annum in tune with the other part of the judgment of the High Court.” (emphasis supplied) (i) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Mohammad Dar v. State of J&K and Others, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 422 in paragraph 8, which reads as under: “8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, by drawing our attention to the direction of the arbitrator as well as the ultimate order passed by the High Court, submitted that in view of default in payment of the amount within the stipulated time, the appellant is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award and not from the date of the decree. In the light of the controversy, we verified the direction of the arbitrator and the order passed by the High Court both in the arbitration and revision petition. On perusal of the same and of the fact that the respondents are none other than the State Government, we agree with the order of the High Court dated 30-4-1998 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 171 of 1991 and hold that the claimant is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. for the award amount from the date of the decree till realisation. To this extent, we clarify the position. The civil appeal is disposed of on the above terms. To this extent, we clarify the position. The civil appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.” (emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decisions and also looking to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, interest ought to be paid to the claimant in money decree. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under: “34. Interest— (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit” (emphasis supplied) (j) Thus, even if interest is not claimed or even if there is no clause in the agreement to make the payment of interest, in money decree, the trial court can award interest on a sum adjudged. The learned Arbitrator had already granted interest @ 12% per annum and Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad, without any cogent and convincing reasons, has reduced it to 6%. This is not permissible in the eye of law. Once the Arbitrator has awarded rate of interest @ 12% per annum, it cannot be so easily altered by the trial court. The trial court has not given any reason, which is tenable at law for reduction of the rate of interest. (k) It further appears from the order passed by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad that the date from which the interest was to be paid, has been altered from 01.11.1984 to the date of decree i.e. 02.09.2004. Thus for 20 long years, no interest has been paid to the claimant. In view of the aforesaid decisions, interest ought to have been paid for this 20 long years. The reason was given by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad that there is no clause in the agreement for payment of interest. Thus for 20 long years, no interest has been paid to the claimant. In view of the aforesaid decisions, interest ought to have been paid for this 20 long years. The reason was given by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad that there is no clause in the agreement for payment of interest. It ought to be kept in mind that even if there is no clause for payment of interest, interest ought to have been awarded especially when the money decree is partly allowed or fully allowed. By the passage of time, utility of money is reduced and money is to be updated. This updation of money with the same purchase power, can only be done, by payment of interest. Even otherwise also, as per Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in money decree the payment of interest can always be given by the Arbitrator. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the judgment delivered by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad in T. (Arbitration) Suit No. 20 of 1989 is, hereby, quashed and set aside to the extent to which the rate of interest has been reduced from 12% to 6%. Original 12% rate of interest, as awarded by the learned Arbitrator is, hereby, restored. Moreover, the judgment delivered by the Sub-Judge II, Dhanbad in T. (Arbitration) Suit No. 20 of 1989 to the extent to which the date from which the interest was to be paid, which is altered from 01.11.1984 to the date of decree i.e. 02.09.2004 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The interest shall be paid by the respondent from 01.11.1984. Thus, the date fixed by the learned Arbitrator for payment of interest is, hereby, restored. The amount of interest shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and disposed of.