Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 592 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. GYAN CHAND MEHTA

2018-02-20

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.1.2012 passed by the Executing Court whereby the Executing Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner-State and has directed payment of interest at a particular rate. 2. On dispute arising between the parties, the same was referred to Arbitrator. The Arbitrator while delivering the award dated 30.6.2001 granted the following relief to the respondent contractor : "Relief : On the basis of my issue-wise findings as above, in the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, award as under : 1. The respondent shall pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.4,77,823,18 (Rupees four lacs seventy thousand eight hundred twenty three and paisa eighteen) only as decided under Issue No. 3 and 4 above. 2. The respondent shall further pay to the claimant interest pendente lite @ 18 per annum on Rs.4,77,823.18 (Rupees four lacs seventy seven thousand eight hundred twenty three and paisa eighteen) only from 23.2.1994 till decree. 3. The claim of past interest of the claimant amounting to Rs.4,49,154/- (Rupees four lacs forty nine thousand one hundred and fifty four only is hereby rejected. 4. The parties will bear their own costs of arbitration proceedings." 3. The petitioner State challenged the award and the Appellate Court i.e. the Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar District Sri Ganganagar by its judgment dated 09.8.2007 ordered as under : vr% jktLFkku jkT; }kjk vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark lkoZtfud fuekZ.k foHkkx [k.M lwjrx<+ izHkkjh vf/kdkjh jkT; ljdkj }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 34 ek/;lhre ,oa lqyg vf/kfu;e 1996 vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj eSDKkupUn esgrk Jhxaxkuxj dks Jh ds0,y0HkkfV;k }kjk is'k iapkV fnuakd 30-06-2001 ds vuq:i :i;s 4]77]823 :i;s 18 iSls fnyok, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS vkSj bl jkf'k ij 18 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls iapkV ds vuq:i C;kt fnyok, tkus dk vkns'k vikLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj eSDKkupUn esgrk dks jkT; ljdkj ls mDr jkf'k ij 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls C;kt fnyok, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS vkSj bls iapkV fnuakd 30-06-2001 dks blh izdkj ls U;k;ky; dk fu;e :y vkWQ dksVZ cuk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA eSDKkupUn esgrk dks jkT; ljdkj ls U;k;ky; dk fu;e cuk, tkus dh frfFk ls Hkqxrku dh frfFk rd 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls C;kt Hkh fnyok, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA 4. Feeling aggrieved both the petitioner and the respondent filed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 113/2009 and SBCMA No. 615/2008 respectively. Both the appeals were decided by a common judgment dated 13.7.2009 by this Court whereby the following order was passed : "Consequently, the appeal No. 113/2009 is dismissed whereas the cross appeal No. 615/2008 filed by the contractor is allowed to the extent that the rate of interest could not be reduced form 18% to 6% by the learned court below. The said impugned order, therefore, would stand modified accordingly. No order as to costs." 5. The Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the judgment dated 13.7.2009 was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.01.2010. 6. During the pendency of the execution proceeding before the executing court, the petitioner State filed application seeking extension of time in depositing the balance amount of decree. The trial court while passing the impugned order dated 07.1.2012 ordered as under : mijksDr fLFkfr esa fMdzhnkj vokM+Z ds yfEcr jgrs gq, tks C;kt 18 izfr'kr dh nj ls vkjfcV~sVaj }kjk 23-02-1994 ls fM+dzh dh frfFk rd fnyk;k x;k gS] ;g C;kt 18 izfr'kr ds fglkc ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS vkSj U;k;ky; dk fu;e cuk;s tkus dk frfFk ls Hkh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa dh Hkkoukvksa ds vuq:i 18 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt fMdzhnkj jkT; ljdkj en~;wu ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA en~;wu dh vkSj ls tks vkosnu&i= fnuakd 17-09-2011 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k] og [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS vkSj en~;wu dks fgnk;r nh tkrh gS fd vokM+Z dh yfEcr vof/k o mlds i'pkr~ vkt rd 4]77]823@& :i;s 18@& iSls ij 18 izfr'kr okf"kZd ds fglkc ls] vnk dh xbZ jkf'k dks lek;ksftr djrs gq,] cdk;k jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fMdzhnkj dks ,d ekg esa djs vU;Fkk fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the original order dated 09.8.2007 of the District Judge was clear and specific wherein the pendente lite interest was reduced to 6% and future interest from the date of judgment of the District Judge was awarded @ 6% p.a. The High Court, in appeal restored the pendente lite interest from 6% to 18%, however, did not disturb the future interest awarded @ 6%. However, the executing court, going beyond the said orders, has observed that 'looking to the intention of the High Court in passing the order, the decree holder was entitled to future interest also @ 18%, which is ex facie incorrect and, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the decree holder has sought execution whereby the rate of future interest was claimed as 6% only and that amount also remained outstanding sustained which was required to be paid by the State for which time was sought to make full payment. It was submitted that the order to the extent of awarding future interest @ 18 % may be set aside. However, it may be clarified that the respondent is entitled to pendente lite interest @ 18% which is evident from the order passed by the High Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the orders passed at three stages clearly indicates that the Arbitrator awarded 18 % pendente lite interest, which was reduced to 6% by the District Court and restored back to 18 % by the High Court. The amount of future interest awarded by the District Court was not disturbed by this Court and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to pendente lite interest @ 18% and future interest at 6%, however, the executing court going beyond the decree passed by it as modified by the order of this court, introduced 'intention of the court' and sought to modify the decree dated 09.8.2007 by enhancing the rate of future interest from 6% to 18% which is ex facie incorrect and cannot be sustained. 11. The revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The order dated 07.1.2012 passed by the executing court is set aside to the extent that it has ordered for payment of interest @ 18% instead of 6% from the date of decree and it is ordered that the decree holder is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum as pendente lite interest and future interest @ 6% only. 12. The order dated 07.1.2012 passed by the executing court is set aside to the extent that it has ordered for payment of interest @ 18% instead of 6% from the date of decree and it is ordered that the decree holder is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum as pendente lite interest and future interest @ 6% only. 12. The fact that the award was passed way back in the year 2001 and the executing proceedings are pending before the executing court since 2008, the executing court is directed to proceed with the matter with utmost expedition.