Full Text
Translation output
_f f
".J- J iA
6to9
% 20.09.20LL
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 (OSl 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.L2.20L0 passed by Justice R.C. Chopra (Retd.), Arbitrator. The awards granted certain claims of the appellants with interest @ L2% 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.362-365120L]- and all these OMPs have been decided by a common
".J- J iA
6to9
% 20.09.20LL
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 (OSl 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.L2.20L0 passed by Justice R.C. Chopra (Retd.), Arbitrator. The awards granted certain claims of the appellants with interest @ L2% 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.362-365120L]- and all these OMPs have been decided by a common
JUDGMENT
dated
24.05.20L1of the learned Single Judge.
Learned Single Judge did not interfere with the award except on the issue of interest where he reduced the interest from 72o/o 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 L, 37 o / 2ott, 37 t / 2OLt & 37 2 / 2oII
2011:DHC:10983-DB ia, appellant volunteered if interest was paid at 9o/o 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 Sirigle Judge to modify 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
24.05.20L1of the learned Single Judge.
Learned Single Judge did not interfere with the award except on the issue of interest where he reduced the interest from 72o/o 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 L, 37 o / 2ott, 37 t / 2OLt & 37 2 / 2oII
2011:DHC:10983-DB ia, appellant volunteered if interest was paid at 9o/o 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 Sirigle Judge to modify 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.3 59/20 1 1, 37 o / 2oLt, 37 t / 2ott & 37 2 / 2071
];. .::
];. .::
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.17621 -^11 (5.151 CPC\ in FAO (OS) 369 ^^11
CM No.17622l2011 ( 5.151 CPC) in FAO (OS) 370/2011
CM No.17623/2011 ( 5.151 CPC) in FAO (OS) 371/2011
CM No.1762412011 ( 5.151 CPC) in FAO (OS) 37212011
These applications have been filed to bring on record subsequent facts. ln a nutshell, the decision is not to accept the proposal for settlement.
The applications stands disposed of. tr
SANJAY t(SHnru KAUL, J.
\(^r\A)V
CJ
SEPTEMBER 20, 2OLI tvs
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Dasti.
CM No.17621 -^11 (5.151 CPC\ in FAO (OS) 369 ^^11
CM No.17622l2011 ( 5.151 CPC) in FAO (OS) 370/2011
CM No.17623/2011 ( 5.151 CPC) in FAO (OS) 371/2011
CM No.1762412011 ( 5.151 CPC) in FAO (OS) 37212011
These applications have been filed to bring on record subsequent facts. ln a nutshell, the decision is not to accept the proposal for settlement.
The applications stands disposed of. tr
SANJAY t(SHnru KAUL, J.
\(^r\A)V
CJ
SEPTEMBER 20, 2OLI tvs
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
FAO ( OS) Nos:3 59/20 1 1, 37 0 / 2011, 37 t I 2011 & 37 2/ 20tI