AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sat Pal, J.
(1) This is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition it has been prayed that the award dated 26/04/1985 be made a rule of the Court and interest at the rate of 18% per annum be awarded. Notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties and thereafter objections were filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. The following issues were framed:-
S.No.1013-A/85.(I)Whether the award is liable to be.set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objections?(ii) Relief.
On the same date the Objector was directed to file affidavit in support of the objections within six weeks and non-Objector was directed to file the counter affidavit within six weeks thereafter. Pursuant to this order affidavit and counter affidavit have been filed.
(2) Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Objector has confined his argument to the objections made in paras 9 and 10 of the objection petition. Learned Counsel submitted that the original claim of the petitioner was to the extent of Rs.1,60,830.00 but before the arbitrator the petitioner advised their claim to the extent ofRs.4,23,816.44. He further contended that in the present case the award is a non speaking one and it could not be said as to whether the learned Arbitrator has awarded the amount against which claim, particularly when there was nil claim against item Nos.6,7 and 8 mentioned in para 10 of the objections. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant has not claimed any interest prior to the date of award and as such the learned Arbitrator could not have awarded any amount on account of interest in favor of the claimant.
(3) After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case I do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Objector. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Objector amounts to analysing the reasons given by the arbitrator in making the award whereas no such reasons have been given in this award as the present award is a non-speaking award. Further, even according to the learned Counsel for the Objector initial demand was made by the petitioner was ofRs.1,60,830.00 and the awarded amount is within the aforesaid amount. In view of this the objections raised by the Objector are rejected. The view I have taken is supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hind Builders Vs. Union of India, .
(4) As regards the interest, it is now well settled that the arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite. In this connection a reference may be made to a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others Vs. G.C. Roy, . Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this contention also. In view of the above discussion the objections contained in is 6512/85 are dismissed .Having dismissed the objections, the award is made a rule of the Court. Let a decree in terms of the award be drawn. The award shall form part of the decree .The petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of this order. I further direct that in case the decretal amount is paid by the petitioner (?) to the respondent (?) within two months from the date of this order, the petitioner will further be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. The parties are, however ,left to bear their own costs.