Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ram Baksh Goyal Chand vs Union Of India Represented By Cwe (P) ... on 26 July, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.R. No.148 of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.148 of 2002
Date of Decision.26.07.2013
M/s Ram Baksh Goyal Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India represented by CWE (P) Hisar Cantt. and another
.......Respondents
Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The civil revision is against the order by the Executing Court rejecting an execution petition filed by the decree holder for realization of a portion of the amount decreed. The claim arose in the following fashion.
2. The petitioner had obtained an award of the Arbitrator on 07.06.1988 under the Arbitration Act of 1940 that provided for interest @12% from the date of award till the date of decree whichever was earlier. On a petition moved for making the award the rule of Court, the Court passed a decree affirming the award on 03.01.1992. Against this judgment, the respondent had preferred an appeal but the appeal was dismissed on 06.06.1994. The payment including interest had been made in the year 1995 by the respondent but in the calculation of Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.31 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.R. No.148 of 2002 -2- interest, the interest had been reckoned only upto 03.01.1992.
3. The execution petition has come to be filed for claiming the interest payable from the period from 03.01.1992 to 06.06.1994 when the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The objection taken by the respondent-judgment debtor has been accepted that the award itself provided for payment of interest only upto the date of decree and therefore, the decree could be claimed only upto the date of decree of first court. In my view, the interpretation given by the respondent as accepted by the Court below is erroneous. If the Court of 1st Instance had passed a decree affirming the award and the amount had not been paid in terms of the award and the respondent had preferred an appeal and the appeal was disposed of on 06.06.1994, it is the Appellate Court's decree which must be taken to be the decree upto which date the respondent shall be rendered liable. Otherwise it will mean granting a premium to a person, who did not satisfy the award and engage the other party in a further appeal, the benefit of not paying the interest during the time when he was prosecuting the appeal, which ultimately was also dismissed. The claim made by the decree holder for interest from 03.01.1992 and 06.06.1994 was perfectly justified and the rejection of the claim was untenable.
4. The order impugned is set aside and the civil revision is allowed. The Court shall proceed with further process in execution in accordance with law.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 26, 2013 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.31 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh