MASHBRA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD v. UOI

1. Learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor has submitted that the Decree Holder has wrongly calculated the amount recoverable from Judgment Debtor after claiming an interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of award till the date of decree, i.e., 16.11.2012. It is submitted that at no stage interest at the rate of 18% per annum was granted to the Decree Holder. It is submitted that while passing the award, the Arbitrator has refused to grant any interest to the Decree Holder. The Judgment Debtor had challenged the said award under Section 34 of the Act and vide its order dated 16.11.2012, the Court, while rejecting the claim of 2014:DHC:5368 the Judgment Debtor under Section 34 of the Act, awarded simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of order till the date of payment, i.e., with effect from 16.11.2012 to the Decree Holder. It has further been submitted that the Judgment Debtor has duly paid the entire decretal amount, including the interest calculated at the rate of 9% per annum from 16.11.2012 till the date of payment.

2. Decree Holder has admitted that the Judgment Debtor pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2012 of the Court has duly paid the decretal amount along with interest calculated at the rate of 9% per annum from 16.11.2012 till the date of making the payment. The contention of the Decree Holder is that he is entitled for an interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of award, i.e., 13.11.2006 till 15.11.2012 under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

3. It is argued by the Judgment Debtor that the Decree Holder had challenged the order dated 16.11.2012 by moving an application being IA No. 282/2013 seeking modification of the said order. His claim in the said application was that he was entitled for the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of award till the actual payment and the said request of the Decree Holder was rejected by the court vide its order dated 12.03.2014. This order has not been challenged by the Decree Holder before any Court and thus it has become binding on both the parties. The Decree Holder is, therefore, not entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award, i.e, 13.11.2006 till 15.11.2012. It is contended that the Decree Holder cannot re-agitate the same issue before this Court as the findings on the issue has attained finality.

4. I have heard the arguments and perused the file. It is apparent that in this case, the award is dated 13.11.2006. This award was challenged by the Judgment Debtor under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The objections of the Judgment Debtor under Section 34 of the Act were dismissed by the Court vide its order dated 16.11.2012. At that time, the Court had awarded interest to the Decree Holder at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of its order dated 16.11.2012 till its realization. The Decree Holder, thereafter, had moved the application bearing IA No. 282/2013, wherein in para 6 he had raised the contention that he was entitled for the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of award, i.e., 13.11.2006 till 15.11.2012. Vide order dated 12.03.2014, the said IA bearing No. 282/2013 was rejected. The Decree Holder has not challenged the said finding of the Court. The issue, therefore, whether the decree holder is entitled for the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of award, i.e., 13.11.2006 till 15.11.2012 stands determined by the order of a competent Court which has attained finality.

5. Learned counsel for the Decree Holder has, however, relied on the findings in the State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. S.L. Arora and Company (2010) 3 SCC 690 and has alleged that the Decree Holder can raise the issue of grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum under Section 31(7)(b) even in the Execution Petition. While going through the judgment, the learned counsel for the Decree Holder has admitted that the facts before this Court and the facts in the case of S.L.Arora (supra) are different. While in this case, the issue regarding entitlement of interest at the rate of 18% per annum under Section 31(7)(b) of the Act stands determined by the order of this Court dated 12.03.2014, in S.L.Arora case (supra), no such determination had taken place till filing of Execution Petition. The findings in S.L.Arora case (supra) are, therefore, not relevant on the facts and circumstances of this case.

6. It has been admitted by the Decree Holder that the Judgment Debtor has paid the entire decretal amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum calculated from 16.11.2012, till the date of payment. The decree, therefore, stands satisfied. The Execution Petition, therefore, stands disposed of being satisfied.

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) OCTOBER 14, 2014 BG