Bal Raj Tuli, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ No. 570 of 1972, Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others Civil Writ No. 1153 of 1972, Mathra Dass v. State of Punjab and others, and Civil Writ No. 2140 of 1972, Kehar Singh v. State of Punjab and others, because of the similarity of the question of law involved in all these cases.
(2.) IN order to decide the points of law involved in these cases the facts of Civil Writ No. 1153 of 1972 may be stated. The petitioner took a loan of Rs. 10,000/ - from the Co -operative Agriculture Service Society of Bandlehri, tehsil Anand Pur Sahib, district Ropar, of which he is one of the members. He took a further loan of Rs. 340/ - Since he did not repay these loans, proceeding for arbitration were taken under section 55 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). It was also alleged by the Co -operative Society that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 18,500/ - on November 7, 1968, but this loan was denied by the petitioner. The arbitrator gave award in favour of the Co -operative Society and against the petitioner directing him to pay the sum of Rs. 28,840/ - on account of principal Rs. 5,096.94 on account of interest at the rate of Rs. 9.37 Paise per cent per annum to the date of the award and Rs. 8484.23 Paise on account of costs. In all, the claim of the Co -operative Society against the petitioner was allowed for Rs. 42,421.17 Paise with the direction that he will pay interest at the rate of Rs. 9.37 Paise per cent, per annum till the date of realisation on the principal amount of Rs. 28,840/ -. Against that award, the petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by the Under Secretary Development (I) (Co -operation), Punjab, in exercise of the powers under section 69 of the Act. The Under Secretary upheld the award of the arbitrator so far as it related to the loins of Rs. 10,000/ - and Rs. 340/ - along with interest and costs on those amounts but set aside that part of the award which related to the loin of Rs. 18,500/ -. He remanded the case for fresh decision by and arbitrator to be appointed by the Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Ropar, with regard to the amount of Rs. 18,500/ -. The award and the order of the Under Secretary to Government, Punjab, have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition to which a written statement has been filed by respondent No 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, Sardara Singh, arbitrator, has made his award with regard to the amount of Rs. 18,500/ - on April 18, 1972. That award has not been challenged in this petition and, therefore, is not for consideration before me. The main argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority (Under Secretary to Government, Punjab) should have set aside the award as a whole because of the reason that he could not uphold It In respect of Rs. 18,500/ -, In my opinion, this submission has no merit because separate arbitration proceedings could have been taken in respect of each loan and if all the three loans were lumped together in one reference, the appellate authority could have upheld the award in respect of the loans proved and set it aside in respect of the loans which were not proved In any case this matter is of academic interest only because the petitioner does not deny his liability for the two loans of Rs. 10,340/ -. He, however, contends that the arbitrator not being a Court, could not award any interest beyond the date of the award nor could he award costs at a flat rate of 25 per cent of the amount awarded but he had to determine the expenses incurred by the Co operative Society in order to award costs.
(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Surrinder Nath Goel : AIR 1960 P&H. 623 which was a case under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and it was held, as per head -note (b), as under : - - Section 29 gives specific powers to the Court to award interest from the date of the decree that section is exhaustive and exclusive. It does not confer any implied power on an arbitrator to grant future interest. Even a Court has no inherent or implied power to grant future interest except under section 34, Civil Procedure Cods. The arbitrator is not a Court. Therefore, even by analogy of section 34, Civil Procedure Code, the arbitrator cannot be held to possess that power. In view of the provisions of section 29 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitration could not award future interest after the date of the decree. But as held by the Supreme Court in Firm Madan Lal Roshan Lal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Limited, Indore : AIR 1967 SC 1030 and Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture Private Limited, AIR 1967 1032 the arbitrator could award interest up to the date of the decree. It is, therefore, evident from the decisions of the Supreme Court that an arbitrator has the power to award interest in the same manner as a Court can do under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Sujant Singh v. Seth Mohinder Paul, AIR 1964 P&H. 395 a learned Single Judge of this Court (H.R. Khanna, J., as his Lordship then was) held that an arbitrator, not being a Court, cannot award future interest. A Division Bench of this Court in Amar Kumar v. The State of Punjab LPA No. 578 of 1972 L.P.A. No. 578 of 1972, decided on April 2, 1974, held - - It is no doubt true that in the form of award, there is a provision for future interest and it may be that in a given case, the parties may raise a dispute as to the grant of future interest before the arbitrator. But so far as the present case is concerned, the question of future interest was not a subject -matter of adjudication before the arbitrator although the arbitrator has proceeded to award future interest in spite of the fact that there is no provision in the rules or in the Act in this respect. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Learned Counsel for the Society, however, asked us to spell it from this form. We are unable to do so. The form merely provides that the decision of the arbitrator should be recorded in this manner. It does not confer power to grant future interest. That being so there is substance in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that future interest could not be granted. Before the learned Single Judge, reference was made to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court under the Arbitration Act for the proposition that an arbitrator has the power to award interest right upto the date of the decree, but the Supreme Court nowhere held that the arbitrator had the power to grant future interest. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions in cases under the Arbitration Act also supports the conclusion at which we have arrived. It is no doubt true that the provisions of the Arbitration Act do not apply to the references under the Co -operative Societies Act, out the answer to the question as to whether the arbitrator, either under the Arbitration Act or under the Co -operative Societies Act, has the power to award future interest, has to be found within the four corners of the particular Act. It is submitted that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules framed under it empowering an arbitrator to award future interest and, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to do so. According to the Supreme Court judgments, an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act has the power to grant future interest up to the date of decree only presumably for the reason that after that date it is the Court, which makes the award the rule of the Court and passes a decree thereon, that can award future interest under section 29 of the Arbitration Act and thus the jurisdiction of an arbitrator to award future interest is limited only to the date of the decree. There is, however, no such power given to an arbitrator under that Arbitration Act. But the decision by the Supreme Court has been arrived at by reference to section 34 of the Coda of Civil Procedure on the ground that the monetary claim, which is decided by an arbitrator, is such which would have been decided by a Court, if reference to arbitration had not been made. Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, an award made by an arbitrator does not have the force of law and in order to make it enforceable it has to be made the rule of the Court by passing a decree which becomes enforceable. An award under the Co -operative Societies Act, on the other hand, amounts to a decree and is enforceable proprio vigore without being made a rule of the Court nor does it require any decree to be passed thereon I am, therefore, of the opinion on the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court judgments, referred to above, that an arbitrator appointed under the Act has the power to award future interest just like a Court passing a decree under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, for this reason, he can award interest at the rate not exceeding 6 per cent, from the date of the award till the date of realisation.;