In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No.5817 of 2008
Date of decision: August 19, 2009
State of Haryana
.. Petitioner
Vs.
M/s Sukhdev & Co.
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG, Haryana for the petitioner.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition is the order dated 9.6.2007 passed by
the learned District Judge, Hisar, whereby the respondent-decree holder was
held entitled to interest.
Arguments heard.
The award was passed by the Arbitrator on 26.4.2002, which
was made rule of the court by the learned District Judge, Hisar, vide its
order dated 23.2.2005. The operative part of the order is as under :-
“In view of the discussion made above and the findings under
issue No.1, the present petition deserves to be dismissed being
without any substance. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The
parties are left to bear their own costs. Memo of costs be
prepared and file be consigned to the records.”
During execution, the award was satisfied. Subsequently, an
application was filed on 21.3.2005, under Section 36 of the Arbitration and
Re-conciliation Act, 1996, claiming interest, over which the learned District
Judge, Hisar passed the following order on 9.6.2007 :
“Heard, I agree with the counsel for the DH that in view of
Section 31 (7)(b) which has already been interpreted in
Civil Revision No.5817 of 2008 -2-Kataria Builders Versus State of H.P. 2004 (3) Arbitration
Law Reporter 137, the DH is entitled to 18% interest. Thus,
the respondent/State is directed to make the payment of interest
as per calculation submitted by the DH by the next date i.e.
25.8.2007.”
While preferring revision against the said order, Ms. Mamta
Singla Talwar, AAG, Haryana has urged that the executing court was wrong
by awarding interest and could not pass any order beyond award. Learned
counsel for the respondent has refuted arguments advanced by the learned
State counsel.
On examination of the impugned order it reveals that the
learned District Judge, Hisar, did not look into the matter in detail and did
not determine if any amount of interest could be awarded even if no order to
that effect was passed by the Arbitrator; or if, the respondent was entitled to
any interest, then, even on subsequent application what amount of interest
was reasonable to be awarded to the respondent.
Under these circumstances, I accept the petition set aside the
impugned order and remit the case back to the learned District Judge, Hisar
to determine the aforesaid points while passing speaking order.
August 19, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge