ADITYA NARAIN Vs. MANOJ KUMAR JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision arises out of proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and is directed against the order dated 17th September, 1998 passed by HI Additional District Judge, Ballia, ordering making award of the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court.

(2.) Late Prabhu Narain Gupta along with his two sons Aditya Narain and A. Kumar entered into partnership as first party with Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Shiv Gopal Jaiswal, Ghan Shyam Jaiswal and Smt. Seema Jaiswal as a second party, on 27 September, 1991 to construct a Cinema house and to run a cinema business in the name and style of M/s Shyam Place Chhitbergaon, district Ballia. An arbitration deed was also entered into between the parties on September 16, 1993, Five Arbitrators were named in the said arbitration agreement. A dispute had arisen between the parties, the same was referred to the arbitration of five arbitrators named in the arbitration agreement. The arbitrators after taking into consideration the respective claims of the parties gave the award on 24th August, 1994. The said award was got registered by the arbitrators. Subsequently the present applicants with their father Prabhu Narain Gupta (who died during the pendency of the proceedings in the court below) filed an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Objections against the said award were filed by the second party, who are opposite parties in the present revision. The matter remained pending before the court below for a considerable period of time, ultimately the second party filed application No. III-C, dated 17th July, 1998, staling that the proceeding for making the award the rule of the Court is being unnecessarily lingered on by the first party and they have no objection if the award dated 24.8.1994 is made rule of the Court. The amount thus awarded amounting to Rs. 7,26,908/- with interest at the rate of 2% per annum may be given to them. The present applicants namely the first party filed objections to the aforesaid application No. III -C of the second party being paper No. 125-C, stating that the objection for payment of interest is not legally maintainable. It was further pleaded that Manoj Kumar had filed suit No. 163 of 1994 Manoj Kumar and Ors. v. Prabhu Narain and had obtained the injunction order which was subsequently vacated and thus, the first party could obtain the possession of the cinema hall only on 12th January, 1995. The court below by the order under revision ordered the making of award as rule of the Court after rejecting the objection raised by the first party with regard to their liability to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month as provided for under the award of the Arbitrators.

(3.) Against the impugned order, a writ petition No. 39197/1998 was filed by the first party in this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 2003 on the ground that it is not maintainable, as the order is revisable under Section 115 C.P.C. However, the writ court further directed that the respondents of the writ petition, (opposite parties in the present revision) are entitled to obtain the amount payable under the award with interest expeditiously.