Raju, J. - (1.) The controversy involved for consideration in these appeals is in a very narrow compass. The appellant M/s. Gautam Construction and Fisheries Ltd., and the 1st respondent-National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Bombay, entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of office accommodation admeasuring 48,000 square feet of built-up area together with the land at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square feet of built-up area. The transaction is governed by two agreements and whereas under the principal agreement, the total amount payable is 1,20,00,000/- at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq. ft. for 48,000 sq. ft. Under the subsidiary agreement, provision was made for amenities, extra works, fittings etc. in a payment of Rs. 150/- per sq. ft. and that is how the total rate constituted Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. Though originally there was a provision for construction of stilt for parking cars, subsequently what was desired and constructed was a basement for car parking. It appears that the conveyance of the buildings was to be after the construction of all floors and as further agreed upon between the parties and that it was a specific term of agreement between the parties also that no separate consideration shall be payable at the time of conveyance other than that which was agreed to between the parties under the agreements.
(2.) Disputes arose between the parties as to the actual amounts to be paid, though the building has been completed and handed over and payments have been made. As against the claim of the appellant for an additional cost of Rs. 48,36,000/-, the 1st respondent made certain counter-claims in a sum of Rs. 85,63,781/- with interest also claimed by both the parties on the amounts respectively claimed by them. The matter was referred to the 2nd respondent-Arbitrator and he passed an Award on 24-5-1990. It may be stated at this stage that the dispute in the present proceedings pertains to only the amount claimed and awarded by the Arbitrator and the Courts below in respect of 12090 sq. ft. of the basement portion provided for car parking in lieu of the earlier agreed stilt, and the rate, if at all to be allowed in respect of the same. So far as the Arbitrator is concerned, he allowed for the basement portion also at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of submission of the final bill, viz. 21-12-1987, till date of payment. There is no dispute with reference to the payment of an extra sum for the extra area of 870.30 sq. ft. and costs of extra items and deposit made by the appellant with the Electricity Board. The Arbitrator totally rejected all counter-claims made by the 1st respondent-Bank.
(3.) The appellant filed O.P. No. 216 of 1990 for a direction to the Arbitrator to file the Award into Court and make it a Rule of Court by passing a decree in terms of the Award for a sum of Rs. 78,02,247.15 with interest due thereon. The 1st respondent-Bank filed O.P. No. 483 of 1990 for setting aside the Award dated 24-5-90. The learned single Judge of the Madras High Court by a judgment dated 4-1-1991 sustained the claim of the appellant for the basement area of 12090 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. though the interest was allowed only from the date of the judgment at 18% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 48,36,000, in question. The 1st respondent's counter-claims were allowed in part only and there is no need to go into the details of the same. Aggrieved, the 1st respondent filed O.S.A. Nos. 75 and 76 of 1991 before a Division Bench. As found stated in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 1-8-1996, under challenge in this Court, the contest in the appeals before the Division Bench was only with reference to the additional cost of construction relating to the basement area for car parking and the rate of interest claimed at 18% p.a. as against the agreed rate of Rs. 12% p.a. in the contract. The learned Judges of the Division Bench held that the 1st respondent was bound to pay the cost of construction for the basement but it should be only at the rate of Rs. 150/- for the extent of 12090 sq. ft. and not at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. as allowed by the Arbitrator and affirmed by the learned single Judge. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, it was held to be at 12% p.a. only and not at 18% p.a. since the agreed and contractual rate was only of 12% p.a. and the same was ordered from the date of judgment of the learned single Judge, viz. 4-1-91. The Division Bench had also noticed the fact that the entire decree amount deposited in Court was allowed to be withdrawn under orders of Court - half without furnishing security and the other half on furnishing security and it was further made clear that pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench the appellants will repay and the 1st respondent is entitled to the refund of the excess amount drawn by them. Hence, the above appeals against the judgment of the Division Bench.;