Full Text
Translation output
-' t
6to9
% 20 .09 .2 011
Present: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent
+ FAO (OS) No.369/2011
+ FAO (OS) No.370/2011
+ FAO (OS) No.371/2011
+ FAO (OS) No.372l2011
*
Admit
Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.
At the request of learned counsels for the parties, appeals are taken up for final disPosal.
The interse dispute between the parties was referred to
Arbitration which has resulted in awards dated 07.L2.2010 passed by Justice R.C. Chopra (Retd.), Arbitrator. The awards granted certain claims of the appellants with interest @ L2o/o p.a.
The respondent filed objections under section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Arbitration
Act) for each of the award being OMP No.362-36512011- and all these OMPs have been decided by a common
6to9
% 20 .09 .2 011
Present: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent
+ FAO (OS) No.369/2011
+ FAO (OS) No.370/2011
+ FAO (OS) No.371/2011
+ FAO (OS) No.372l2011
*
Admit
Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.
At the request of learned counsels for the parties, appeals are taken up for final disPosal.
The interse dispute between the parties was referred to
Arbitration which has resulted in awards dated 07.L2.2010 passed by Justice R.C. Chopra (Retd.), Arbitrator. The awards granted certain claims of the appellants with interest @ L2o/o p.a.
The respondent filed objections under section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Arbitration
Act) for each of the award being OMP No.362-36512011- and all these OMPs have been decided by a common
JUDGMENT
dated
24.05.2011 of the learned SingleJudge.
Learned single Judge did not interfere with the award except on the issue of interest where he reduced the interest from 12% p.a. to 6% p.a. lt is this dispute which is assailed by the appellant in these appeals. some endeavour was made to settle the dispute as the
\
FAO ( OS ) N os.3 69/20 1 1, 37 0 | 20!\, 37 tl 207t & 37 2 I 20tI
2011:DHC:11010-DB
\ appellant volunteerbd if interest was paid at 9% p.a., the appellants were willing to give a quietus to the litigation. The respondent/MCD was to take instruction in this behalf. Their instructions are that the respondent is not willing to settle on this issue. Thus we have to hear the appellants on merits.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there can be no question of reduction of interest as there is not even a ground raised in the OMP filed by the respondent qua the issue of interest. This position is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Division
Bench's judgment in PD Khanna & Ors. Vs. Ashwani Khanna and
Ors. 152 (2008) DLT 544 where it has been held that unless a ground is specifically raised in an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the court would not modify / set aside the award in that behalf.
In the factual matrix of the present case where no objection has been raised to the rate of interest awarded by the learned
Arbitrator, in our considered view there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to mociify the rate of interest. lnfact the only reason given in para 9 of the impugned order is that the rate of interest is on the higher side as the rate of inflation had fallen.
We are thus of the considered view that the impugned
FAo ( os) Nos.369/20 1 1, 37 o / zolt, 37 t / 201'L & 37 2 / 20tl t?
24.05.2011 of the learned SingleJudge.
Learned single Judge did not interfere with the award except on the issue of interest where he reduced the interest from 12% p.a. to 6% p.a. lt is this dispute which is assailed by the appellant in these appeals. some endeavour was made to settle the dispute as the
\
FAO ( OS ) N os.3 69/20 1 1, 37 0 | 20!\, 37 tl 207t & 37 2 I 20tI
2011:DHC:11010-DB
\ appellant volunteerbd if interest was paid at 9% p.a., the appellants were willing to give a quietus to the litigation. The respondent/MCD was to take instruction in this behalf. Their instructions are that the respondent is not willing to settle on this issue. Thus we have to hear the appellants on merits.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there can be no question of reduction of interest as there is not even a ground raised in the OMP filed by the respondent qua the issue of interest. This position is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Division
Bench's judgment in PD Khanna & Ors. Vs. Ashwani Khanna and
Ors. 152 (2008) DLT 544 where it has been held that unless a ground is specifically raised in an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the court would not modify / set aside the award in that behalf.
In the factual matrix of the present case where no objection has been raised to the rate of interest awarded by the learned
Arbitrator, in our considered view there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to mociify the rate of interest. lnfact the only reason given in para 9 of the impugned order is that the rate of interest is on the higher side as the rate of inflation had fallen.
We are thus of the considered view that the impugned
FAo ( os) Nos.369/20 1 1, 37 o / zolt, 37 t / 201'L & 37 2 / 20tl t?
v
= order is liable to be set aside to the extent it modifies/lowers the grant of interest by the learned Arbitrator and thus the appellants will be entitled to interest in terms of the awards atl2o/o p.a'
The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Dasti.
CM No.17 69
No.17 622
No.17623
70t20
= order is liable to be set aside to the extent it modifies/lowers the grant of interest by the learned Arbitrator and thus the appellants will be entitled to interest in terms of the awards atl2o/o p.a'
The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Dasti.
CM No.17 69
No.17 622
No.17623
70t20
24t20Lr 011
':t
These applications have been filed to subsequent facts. In a nutshell, the decision is proposal for settlement, '
The applications stands disposed of. bring not to on record accept the
F
SEPTEMBER 20, 2OTT vg
FAO ( OS ) N os.3 69/20 1 1, 37 0 I 20t1, 37 t I 20Lt & 37 2 /207t tr
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. r(u*[L*ttl af
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
':t
These applications have been filed to subsequent facts. In a nutshell, the decision is proposal for settlement, '
The applications stands disposed of. bring not to on record accept the
F
SEPTEMBER 20, 2OTT vg
FAO ( OS ) N os.3 69/20 1 1, 37 0 I 20t1, 37 t I 20Lt & 37 2 /207t tr
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. r(u*[L*ttl af
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.