Delhi High Court
Satya Prakash & Bros. vs Mcd on 4 May, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: May 01, 2009
Date of Order: May 04, 2009
+ CS(OS) 1155A/1998
% 04.05.2009
Satya Prakash & Bros. ...Petitioner
Through : Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Versus
MCD ...Respondent
Through: Nemo
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This application under Section 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, "the Act") has been made by the petitioner for making the award dated 23 rd June 1997 a rule of Court.
2. This award was filed by the learned Arbitrator in 1998. A notice of this award was served upon both the parties in July, 1998. When the matter was taken up on 23rd July 1998, Mr. B.M. Sehgal appeared for the claimant/petitioner and filed vakalatnama. The notice of the award was also sent to the respondent. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on various occasions, neither the counsel for the claimant appeared nor the counsel for the respondent appeared and no objections were filed. Ultimately, vide order dated 4th March 1999, the matter was stayed sine die with the observation CS(OS) 1155A/1998 Satya Prakash Bros. v. MCD Page 1 Of 3 that the parties will be free to get the same revived as and when they think it proper. The present application/ petition has been made after lapse of about 11 years of filing of award and after ten years of passing the above order.
3. It is settled law there is no limitation in entertaining an application under Section 17 of the Act and once an award is filed in the Court and if no objections are raised by the respondent against the award within the period of limitation, the award should be made a rule of court.
4. I consider that no notice of this application is required to be served upon the respondent since the respondent was served notice of award but nobody appeared on behalf of respondent nor objections were filed within period of limitation. The award is liable to be made a rule of Court. However, keeping in view that the Arbitrator had awarded interest @ 18% per annum and looking at the fact that applicant /petitioner had been sleeping all along and had not even bothered to appear in the Court when the notice was given, I consider that the petitioner would not be entitled to interest after the award was filed in the Court till making of this application. Even otherwise awarded interest @ 18% per annum in my opinion, looking into the present day scenario, is quite exorbitant rate of interest. The interest on the awarded amount for post award period which would start only from the date of this order is allowed @ 6% per annum. The award is modified to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount.
5. Accordingly, the award dated 23rd June 1997 is hereby made a rule of Court with the modification that the applicant/petitioner would not be entitled CS(OS) 1155A/1998 Satya Prakash Bros. v. MCD Page 2 Of 3 to interest an amount awarded from 9th July 1998 till April 2009. The petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount from 4th May 2009 onwards.
6. The petition stands disposed of with above order.
May 04, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd CS(OS) 1155A/1998 Satya Prakash Bros. v. MCD Page 3 Of 3