LAWS(MPH)-2013-1-22

MACHINE INDIA Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER JABALPUR ZONE

Decided On January 08, 2013
Machine India Appellant
V/S
Chief Engineer Jabalpur Zone Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the order dated 16.09.2010 passed by learned Executing Court in Execution Case No.47/2003 has been filed by the applicant- Contractor.

(2.) NO exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this revision. Suffice it to say that in pursuance to the arbitration agreement executed between the parties, Arbitrator passed an award on 15.06.2002. Since award was passed under the Old Act i.e. Arbitration Act, 1940, the same was made rule of Court vide order dated 31.01.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Jabalpur in MJC Arbitration No.47/2003. Thereafter since the amount was not paid by respondent to the Contractor-applicant, he submitted an execution application and also prayed for the interest. According to Contractor, he is entitled to interest upon interest and because the principal amount alongwith interest was not paid in time by the Union of India, therefore, the interest amount would merge in the principal amount and upon the enhanced amount which would be called as principle amount the interest is payable. This submission of the applicant was not accepted by the Executing Court.

(3.) SHRI C.V. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Contractor-applicant submits that if the amount of interest is not paid upto the stipulated period, the interest amount would merge in the principal amount and enhanced amount shall be called to be principal amount and upon which 9% simple interest is to be paid in term of the rule of the Court. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed heavy reliance on two decisions of Supreme Court, they are Union of India v. Harbans Singh Tuli and Sons Builders Private Limited (2008)12 SCC 520 and Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited v. Three Circles (2009) 10 SCC 374 and hence it has been prayed that by allowing this revision application, the details of the account submitted by the applicant be accepted and the impugned order passed by the Executing Court be set aside.