Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) By this order, I intend to dispose of two F.A.Os.No.1028 and 1029 of 2016 as the common questions of law and fact are involved in both the appeals.
(2.) The aforementioned appeals are at the instance of the appellantMiller seeking setting-aside of the awards dated 15.10.2012 by invoking the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "1996 Act"). Both the awards have been rendered ex parte despite the fact that the appellant had availed the services of a lawyer, but did not file the reply. Even the objections have been filed with delay, but yet the same have been dismissed.
(3.) During the course of arguments, Mr.K.V.S.Kang, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from his client, agreed to settle the amount. Mr.Aman Sharma, learned counsel for the PUNSUP has handed over a copy of the letter dated 5.10.2016 to show that the realisable value of the property, which is being offered by the appellant, is almost Rs. 50.00 lacs, whereas the outstanding amount is Rs. 2,98,25,336/- in both the awards as on 30.6.2014, but according to Mr.Kang, the principal amount as per both the awards is Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Mr.Kang further submits that he has given offer to the PUNSUP to sell land measuring 2.25 acres for the execution of the awards, but the PUNSUP is acting as a shylock. He further submits that no doubt, the lawyer had not been diligent in pursuing the matter as the appellant had complete faith, much less relationship of lawyer and client was fiduciary in nature, but yet submits that awarding of interest @ 21% is too phenomenal. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Radhakrishna Murthy Versus M/s N.B.C.C. Ltd., 2013 2 RCR(Civ) 355.;