VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsels.
(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dt. 01.06.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur who while allowing the application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 made the arbitration award dt. 26.03.1999 a rule of Court, however, reduced the rate of interest from 18% per annum as awarded by the Arbitrator to 9% per annum pendente lite from 25.03.1996 to the date of payment in the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contractor urged that the Court had no power to reduce the rate of interest from 18% to 9% per annum without assigning any reason in the impugned order. Unless the arbitration award itself is found to be wrong so as to not to make a rule of Court, the learned District Judge could not reduce the rate of interest while not disturbing the amount of arbitration award itself. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.L. Gupta Construction (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. : 2003(3) Arb. LR 570 (SC) and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paradip Port Trust and Ors. v. Unique Builders 2001(1) Arb. LR 505 (SC) and the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Alim and Co. v. State of Rajasthan 1998 (Supp.) Arb. LR 67.
(3.) AS against this, Mr. Mukul Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy and Anr. : AIR 2007 SC 817 referring to para 11 of the said judgment submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case had reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 9% at all the three stages of the arbitration namely pre -arbitration, pendent lite and post -award period. He, therefore, submitted that since the Bank rates have been constantly falling and the present Banks also paid interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the impugned order of learned District Judge does not require to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.;