Full Text
EX.P. 10/2011
M/S ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LTD Decree Holder Tlirough Mr Ainit George, Adv.
JUDGMENT
^ CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The operative
^ portion ofthe award reads as imder;
3) In view of difference of opinion between Shri S.C. Gupta & Shri Jagmohan Lai on the one hand and Sliri Surjeet Singh on the other, we award by majority against Claim No.2, a sum of:
(i) Rs.43,57,150/- (Rupees forty three laklis fifty seven thousand one hundred fifty only) along with interest amounting to Rs.25,41,670/- (Rupees twenty five laklis forty one thousand six hundred seventy only) relating to additional escalation on HYSD bars; and
(ii) Rs.2,48,12,287/- (Rupees two crores forty eight lakhs twelve thousand two hundred eighty seven only) along with interest amounting to Rs.1,06,96,562/- (Rupees one crore six laklis ninety six thousand five hundred sixty two only) relating to additional escalation onmild steel.
4) Claim No.3,4,[6] &7 are dismissed.
5) The amount as awarded at S. No.l, 2 & 3 above shall be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant within 60 days of publication ofaward, failing which interest @12% (Twelve percent) per annum on the awarded amount shall be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant from date of publishing of the award till realization." The substantial amount of the award has already been received by the decree holder. The remaining amount to the tune ofRs.13,99,643/- is due towards interest as on21.01.2011. The learned counsel for thejudgment debtor has challenged the component of interest awarded by the learned Arbitral Tribunal and the amount sought by the decree holder towards the said interest claimed. The learned counsel for the decree holder in support of his contention has referred to the case ofM/s Foremost Industries India Ltd. V. Ram Swamp Khattar: AIR 1993 Delhi 84. "The decree-holder successfully obtained a decree against the appellant in a suit filed under O. 37, Civil P.C. The decree provided payment of interest on the decretal amount and the decretal amount included principal and interest due up to the date of filing of the suit.
2. In execution, an objection is being raised on behalf of the appellant, who is a judgment-debtor that interest is payable on the principal amount and not on the amount, principal plus interest, which was the basis ofthe suit, on which the Court awarded interest. The argument raised is that the decree, which allowed interest on the amount of interest, due up to the date of filing of the suit, should be treated as a nullity, being contrary to the provisions of
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 jk MANMOHAN SINGH,^