9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd made on 31st December 1987 the arbitrators directed the appellant to pay the respondents various amounts towards the several heads of claim put forward by the respondents. The arbitrators also awarded interest in respect of certain of the respondents' claims. As the dispute in this appeal centers around the right of the respondent to claim interest, the relevant portion of the award in this context is extracted (wherein the appellant herein is referred to as 'the respondent' and the respondent herein as 'the claimant'): Respondent to pay claimant interest @ 9% from 29.5.80. Respondent to pay claimant interest at 10% from 1.2.1985 on claims III to IX and on Claim XII only The award was filed in the local Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents on the amounts due under the decree from the date of decree till the date of payment or realisation, serious prejudice and hardship would be caused to the respondents. The application was dismissed by the Court on 29th October 1990. It was held on a construction of the order dated 26th March 1990 that it was not a case of any omission or slip but that the Court had chosen not to grant any interest to the respondents on the decretal amount. The respondents did not challenge this order nor did they prefer any appeal from the decree or order dated 26th March 1990. However, on 10th December 1990, the appellant preferred an appeal from the order dated 26th March 1990 before the High Court. The appeal was allowed to the extent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in terms of the award and therefore the appellants were entitled to claim interest on the decree. The reasoning of the High Court is faultless as a pure proposition of law and in keeping with the decision of this Court in State of Orissa Vs. B.N. Agarwalla 1997 (2) SCC 469 where it was held that: When the court does not modify the award with regard to grant of interest from the date of the award up to the date of payment, the effect would be as if the court itself has granted interest from the date of the decree till the payment at the rate which was determined by the arbitrator. The future interest would be regarded as having been ordered to be paid under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act when the court does not modify the award ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order dated 26th March 1990 and that by affirming the award, future interest had been granted. It did not say so. It said categorically that the prayer for future interest or interest on the decree had been considered and had been refused by the Court. When the High Court affirmed the decree in 1991, the decree had already been interpreted - an interpretation which was not questioned. In the light of B.N. Agarwalla's case (supra) the correctness of the decision may be doubtful. But the respondents accepted this interpretation of the decree. They could have challenged the interpretation but they did not. They also chose not to prefer an appeal from the decree itself. Not having adopted either course, the interpretation of the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
