Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Y.K. Srivastava appearing for the U.P. State Sugar Corporation.
(2.) By means of present writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-M/s Sumac International Ltd. through its Director is assailing the order dated 26.5.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Muzaffarnagar in Suit No.652 of 1995 by which the court below has rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short "the Act of 1940) for amending the award dated 1.10.2017 passed by Sole Arbitrator Justice Sushil Harkauli (Retd.) so far as interest specified in the award.
(3.) The record in question reflects that on 2.8.1989 an agreement was entered into between the respondent-Corporation as purchaser and the petitioner company as the seller to design, purchase, engineering lay out, manufacture, procure, supply machinery and equipment of complete sugar plant for purchaser's scheme of modernization-cum-expansion of their existing sugar plant of Rohana Kalan Distt. Muzaffarnagar from 1300 TCD to 2500 TCD. During the subsistence of the aforesaid agreement there arose a dispute between the petitioner company and respondent no.1-Corporation. A petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was moved before the Civil Judge, Muzaffar Nagar by the petitioner-company, numbered as Arbitration Case No.652 of 1995. The matter went upto to Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.15357 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No.9866 of 1996 (U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. M/s Sumac International Ltd., 1997 1 SCC 568). By judgment and order dated 4.12.1996 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner company before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar under Section 20 and by that order Justice R.M. Sahai, a retired judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as Sole Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator proceeded with the arbitration. The claim petition and the counter-claim were entertained. After exchange of pleadings, evidence was recorded and the arbitration case was proceeding at the stage of final arguments but unfortunately the matter could not proceed further due to sad and untimely demise of learned Arbitrator. Consequently, I.A. Nos.5 and 7 were moved in the aforesaid civil appeal, wherein by order dated 29.8.2013 Justice Sushil Harkauli, retired Judge of this High Court was appointed as Sole Arbitrator. A company named Indian Potash Ltd. was also impleaded a party during the arbitration proceedings but learned Arbitrator in his award held that the said impleaded company is not a party to the agreement in question therefore his jurisdiction is confined to decide rights and liabilities of the original parties to the agreement. Finally the Sole Arbitrator had pronounced the award on 1.10.2017 partly allowing the claim of the petitioner and dismissing the counter claim of opposite party in the following terms:- "(i) The claimant will get from the first respondent to a lump sum amount of Rs.6,50,00,000/- (Rupees six crore fifty lakhs) as compensation in full and final settlement of its claim. The said amount will carry simple interest at ther ate of (six percent) 6% per annum from 07.12.1995 till the date on which this award is made rule of Court. (ii) The claimant will also get from the first respondent refund of the full amount received by the said respondent from the bank as a result of invocation of all the bank guarantees. The said amount will carry simple interest at the rate of (eight) 8% from the date when the amount was received by the respondent from the bank till the date of this award and (six) 6% interest from the dated of this award till the date when this award is made rule of Court. (iii) The claimant will also get costs of the litigation from the first respondent which is quantified at Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs).";