RAVINDRA V TAMBA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved is a more question of calculations. The stake involved is probably of a few hundred rupees; perhaps of a thousand or so, and on this small point the Government and the Contractor are breaking their heads figuratively.

(2.) IN the dispute between the Government on one hand and the Engineer Contractor on the other, Award was given. There is no dispute that the principal amount payable by the Government to the Contractor is an amount of Rs. 5, 246. 39 p. in respect of the final bill. Interest is made payable on the same from the date when the final bill became payable. Para 99 on the Award is quite clear on this point. That para shows that the payment of final bill was delayed by the Government unnecessarily and no that account the claimant has been held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when the payments should have been made till the date of the Award. In the proceedings for making the Award the rule of the Court, the Award had to be remitted to the Arbitrator for certain reasons and the Arbitrator gave an amended Award. The reason why the Award was remitted has nothing to do with the question of the rate or amount of interest on the amount due as final bill. The remission was for the purpose of quantification of certain items of claim. The Arbitrator did the work of quantification. The Award therefore, stood amended accordingly. The Award as amended by the subsequent Award was made the rule of the Court. But while doing so, by virtue of a manifest mistake, apparent on the fact of the record, a distinction is apparently made between the original Award and the amended Award. Really speaking, what must have been intended was that once the Award was amended the original Award merges in the amended Award. It is not as if that there were two Awards and two Decrees. The fact is that there is just one Decree. This means that the original Award had, even according to the Courts, merged in the amended Award. The words in the original Award (Para 99) "till the date of the Award" used in the Award must be deemed to be till the date of the final Award, that is to say, till the date of the amended Award in which the original Award had merged, This has to be so, because the decree that is passed ultimately in one Decree, not two Decrees.

(3.) THE Court has ordered that interest shall be paid at the rate of 12% from the date of the amended Award. What is evidently intended is that the direction contained in the original Award (Para 99) must be construed to mean that the interest was payable till the date of the final Award, that is to say, the Award which stood after its amendment. There was never any in tention to pass two different Awards. If there was such intention, two different Decree would have been passed, because the two different Awards would have been made the rule of the Court separately.