TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ward decree passed by the learned Trial Judge subject to a slight modification in favour of the appellant - State to which we will make a reference while considering the cross-appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6307 of 1995. The cross-appeal is filed by the respondent Harish Chanra Co. in Civil Appeal No.7643 if 1995 who has felt aggrieved by the modification regarding rate of interest as ordered by the High Court in the impugned judgment to the extent it reduced interest from 15 per cent per annum as awarded by the trial court from the date of decree till payment to 6 per cent. A few facts leading to the controversy in question may be stated at the outset. On 26th October, 1979 an agreement was entered into between the Superintending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sole arbitrator - Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department of the State. After hearing the parties, the arbitrator rendered his award dated 24th February, 1992. The arbitrator awarded interest on the amounts found due by him to the respondent at the rate of 15 per cent from 16.11.1983, that is, the date on which the claimant had sought for reference, to 5.1.1988 on different items. Interest pendente lite was also allowed at 15 per cent and 6 per cent interest was allowed on the amounts found due from the date of the award to the date of actual payment or date of decree whichever was earlier. The said award was sought to be made rule of the court by the respondent. The appellant-State raised various objections to the award being made rule of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the following points arise for our determination :- (1) Whether the award of interest prior to the date of the reference was within the power and jurisdiction of the arbitrator ? (2) Even if it was within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, whether Clause 1.9 barred such consideration ? (3) Whether such an objection could have been raised before the court in objections under Section 30 of the Act ? (4) Whether the reduction of interest from 15.5 per cent to 6 per cent from the date of the decree till satisfaction of the decree as ordered by the High Court was justified ? Point No.1 So far as this point is concerned, we note a decision of the 3-Judge Bench of this Court in State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of dispute referred to him, it was for the arbitrator to decide that question and that could not have been made subject matter of any objection under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. It is not necessary for us to closely examine this contention of Shri Salve for the simple reason that when we turn to the Clause itself, we find that even on merits learned counsel for the appellant-State cannot effectively support his contention in the light of the said Clause. The reason is obvious. The said Clause reads as under :- 1.9 No claim for delayed payment due to dispute etc. No claim for interest or damages will be entertained by the Government with respect to any moneys or balances which may be lying with Government owing to any disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 3-Judge Bench of this Court in paragraphs 25 of the Report that under Clause 4 which was pressed in service, no interest was payable on the amount withheld. The claim which was made in that case by Durga Parshad before the arbitrator was for the non-payment of the full amount as per final bill submitted by him and the interest so awarded on the said amount was clearly not covered by Clause 4 of the contract. Similar is the facts situation in the present case and the working of the Clause in question is also of an identical nature. Therefore, the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant-State that Clause 1.9 barred the consideration of such a claim for interest cannot be sustained. The High Court, therefore, rightly came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of interest for being awarded to the contractor. In our view, the said reasoning cannot be sustained for the simple reason that even if aforesaid Paragraph 7-A which was not pressed in service before the High Court could be resorted to, it only barred the power of the arbitrator and not of the court. Further, it could not be said that the arbitrator had found the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum to be reasonable. In fact, he had no authority or power to go beyond 6 per cent interest. So far as the court is concerned, it is in its discretion to award 15.5 per cent interest on the decretal amount from the date of the decree till satisfaction of the decree. As that was within the realm of the discretionary jurisdiction of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
