- (1.) The above appeal is preferred at the instance of the decree-holder being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court while passing judgment upon award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act") by which learned Trial Judge refused to grant interest from the date of the award till the date of passing of the decree.
(2.) The short fact of the case is that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator was challenged unsuccessfully by the respondent under Section 30(33) of the said Act even right up to Appeal Court. It appears that learned Arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of entering upon reference till the date of the passing of the award. The learned Trial Judge while dismissing the application under Section 30(33) of the said Act accepted the said award. However, the Appeal Court modified the rate of interest awarding 6% per annum. Thereafter the learned Trial Judge initially on 20th November, 2008 while passing judgment and decree in terms of the award dated 25th September, 1985 awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of full payment to the petitioner meaning thereby it had covered the period from the date of filing of the award for making the same rule of the Court till the date of passing of the decree also. It has to be noted even after decree was passed the payment was not made but principal amount was deposited after the decree was passed. Thereafter the said order was modified subsequently by the impugned judgment and order whereby the period of interest was reduced from the date of passing of the decree till the date of making payment presumably invoking power under Section 29 of the said Act. The sum and substance of the appeal is that the first order was perfectly lawful and justified but by the subsequent order the learned Trial Judge has committed error in law by not awarding interest from the date of filing of the award for making the rule of the Court under Section 17 of the said Act up to the date of the passing of the decree.
(3.) Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits with authorities viz., Indian Mineral vs Nortah India, 1958 AIR(All) 692 Gujarat water supply vs Unique Erectors, 1989 1 SCC 532, Secretary vs G C Roy, 1992 1 SCC 508 Hindustan Construction vs State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1992 4 SCC 217 that when the award has been filed under Section 17 it is a proceedings before the Court and it can award interest in addition to what has been granted by the learned Arbitrator from the date of filing of such application for making the award rule of the Court up to the date of passing decree under Section 29 of the said Act.;