- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent.
(2.) THE instant Misc. Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.9.1997 passed by Sri Raghubar Sharan Pandey, Subordinate Judge -I, Ranchi in Miscellaneous ease No. 6 of 1997 by which judgment learned Sub -Judge -I has dismissed the application filed by the appellant u/ss. 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act raising objection with regard to the Arbitration award granted by the sole Arbitrator Sri G.P. Das. With regard to the claims, the appellant has submitted before the trial court that although the Arbitrator accepted the claims made by the appellant, but it has reduced the claim amount and appellant also raised the objection that the Arbitrator failed to grant interest before the reference is made and from the date the appellant made demand for the same. Learned Sub -Judge -I, with regard to the claim of interest, came to a finding that no doubt the law as placed before the court suggest that the Arbitrator has got power to grant interest even before the reference, right from the date of claim, it is his discretionary power and as such, he found no arbitrariness and illegality in the award and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it will appear from the objection petition (Annexure -7) as well as from the award itself (Annexure -6) that the claim with regard to extra work was made by the claimant -appellant on 26.8.1988 which was denied by the opposite party i.e. MECCON and then the appellant exercised its right of arbitration vide letter dated 26.8.1988 and as such at least appellant is entitled to get interest on the awarded money from 26.8.1988 till the payment are made. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that although in the award also they have raised objection with regard to other points also, but they are confining their argument only to the point of interest as made in the objection petition which was filed as Annexure -7. The company has also filed in his reply Annexure -8 at para 15 that it was in the discretion of the Arbitrator to grant interest from the date of claim. It is further submitted that it will be relevant to note that if there is no legal objection and if there is no clause in the Arbitration agreement that interest cannot be granted from the date of claim then the arbitrator was duty bound to give interest from the date the claim was made, since, the plaintiff -company made its claim and suffered loss of money, which it was entitled to get. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on two recent decisions reported in "2009(10) see page 187 in the case of Indian Hume Pipe and another decision reported in "2010(1) see Page 549 and submitted that even the Hon'ble Supreme court has ruled that if, there is no justifiable reason to deny, the interest should be granted.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent -MEEEON has objected to the same and stated that the argument that no doubt the Arbitrator could have granted the interest from the date of claim, but, since, in his discretion he has not granted the interest, the appellants are not entitled to get the same.;