- (1.) By an order dated 20th December, 2018 in an application under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner no.1 Dr. Swastika Mahapatra, this Court had directed the petitioner no.1 to pay Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty lacs) in five equal instalments on the last Friday of every month starting from February, 2019. The operative part of the order is set out below: "Having gone through the extended recording of sittings over a span of two years, this court finds no basis in setting aside the impugned Award. While one can appreciate the predicament of the lawyers representing the petitioner no.1 in having to safeguard the interest of a litigant who plays truant while resisting an Award against such litigant, the conduct of the petitioner no.1 in taking advantage of a lenient Arbitrator and dragging a clear-cut case to extend over two years, cannot be absolved at all. The claim of the respondent should also be seen in context. Having parted with the money, the respondent could not get possession of the asset in question, namely, the flat where the petitioner no.1 has been living till date. Since the advocate on record of the petitioner before me at the very outset beseeched this court to treat this essentially as a petition for mercy, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner no.1 is a single parent with a young child, it would be reasonable to direct the petitioner no.1 to pay the amount of Rs.50 lakhs in five equal instalments payable on the last Friday of every month, starting from the month of February, 2019. If the petitioner no.1 defaults in the payment of the first and second instalments, the respondent will be at liberty to seek appropriate recourse against the petitioner no.1 in accordance with law."
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent who has filed the review application submits that contrary to the direction passed, the petitioner has failed to pay even a single installment since February, 2019. Counsel also relies on the material part of the Award dated 3rd April, 2017 by which the petitioners herein were directed to pay interest at 18% per annum from the date when the money was received by the respondents till the date of the Award and further that the respondent before this Court was entitled to a further interest at 18% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of the Award till realisation of its dues. Counsel submits that in the order passed by this Court on 20th December, 2018, no direction had made for payment of interest by the petitioners herein.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner no.1 prays for extension of time to pay the instalments as directed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner no.2, being the daughter of the petitioner no.1, prays for time to take instruction in the matter on the ground that on the date when the application for setting aside of the award was decided, the petitioner no.2 was a minor. It is further contended by counsel that the petitioner no.2 did not have notice of the proceeding pertaining to the setting aside of the Award. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the provision of interest is necessary in view of the conduct of the petitioner no.1 in failing to comply with the direction passed in the order dated 20th December, 2018. Since the operative part of the Award directs the petitioner no.1 to pay interest on two counts, it is fit that the petitioner no.1 is directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from the date of the first default committed by the petitioner i.e. February, 2019 until the entire sum of money is paid by the petitioner no.1 to the respondent. Since this Court did not interfere with the Award, the petitioner shall also pay additional interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of the Award till the amount directed is paid to the respondent. It should be mentioned that there were only two directions pertaining to interest given by the learned Arbitrator. ;