Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) (COMM) 185/2023 & C.M.Nos.44370-44372/2023
COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Anupam Srivastava, ASC for GNCTD with Ms.Ruchita Garg, Ms.Sarita Pandey and Mr.Anushka
Bhatnagar, Advocates.
Through: None
Date of Decision: 28th August, 2023
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal has been challenging the order and judgment dated 23rd February, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM) 33 of 2023 whereby appellant’s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the petition under Section 34 of the Act had been filed challenging the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator which granted the respondent a payment of Rs.2,80,70,843/towards the balance payment of bills for the period June 2013 to March 2015 along with interest at 12% per annum dating back to the date of invocation of the arbitration clause. He further states the learned Arbitrator ruled that the respondent is entitled to an award of Rs.9,50,000/- towards refund of security deposit with interest at 12% per annum until realization and the cost of the arbitral proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant only seeks to challenge the rate of interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator. He states that the learned Arbitrator's decision was flawed and should have been set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court while adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act.
4. He states that it is the case of the appellant that the respondent had neglected to submit the proof of Employee Provident Fund (EPF) and Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) for the employees deployed as per the contract between the parties.
5. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the learned Arbitrator has explained the rationale behind the grant of interest at 12% per annum in para 48 of the award. The relevant portion of the said award is reproduced hereinbelow:-
6. From the aforesaid and in particular the order dated 05th September, 2016 passed by EPFAT, it is apparent that the appellant’s defence that the respondent had failed to furnish proof of payment of EPF and ESIC to its employees is without any basis.
7. This Court also finds that under Section 31(7)(a) of the Act, Arbitral Tribunal has the discretion to award interest at such rate it deems reasonable either on the whole or any part of the money. Clearly, the rate of interest falls within the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find the rate of interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator to be arbitrary or capricious calling for any interference by this Court under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act.
9. This Court further finds that the learned Arbitrator has not awarded any damages, as according to the Arbitrator, the interest component would constitute sufficient compensation for the respondent.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed along with pending applications. MANMOHAN, J MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 28, 2023