LAL CHAND ROY Vs. NERODE KANTA GOSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of Mallick, J. dated August 21, 1964 by which he dismissed an application made by the appellant to correct, remit or set aside an award. The facts of the case are shortly as follows: The appellant and the respondent jointly acquired three properties, namely, premises Nos. 2A, Colonel Biswas Road, No. 89, Bepin Ghosal Road and No. 21, Taltolla Bazar Street. The parties had equal shares in the said properties. The petitioner claimed that he had made excess contribution for acquisition of one of the said properties and in effecting a partition of the properties, this claim should be kept in view. The respondent disputed the claim about excess payment. All matters in dispute between the parties relating to partition, including the claim for excess payment, were referred to the sole arbitration of Dr. P. C. Chunder by an agreement dated May 15, 1959. The relevant Clauses in the said agreement are Clauses 1, 5, 6 and 7 which are set out hereunder:

(2.) AN application was made by the Appellant to set aside this award and it was contended that the award of interest cannot be sustained in law. The position that was taken in the Court below was that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction in law to award interest on the amount that has been awarded and reference was made to Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which empowers the Court to grant interest on the amount awarded from the date of the decree. It was conceded that if the learned Judge set aside the award with regard to the amount of interest after the decree, but interest was granted by the Court under the decree, then no objection could be made. This offer however did not find favour with the learned Judge who proceeded to consider the other point, namely, whether it was permissible for an arbitrator to award interest on moneys which have been awarded under the award itself. The learned Judge was of the opinion that in a case where the reference was in a wide form and the arbitrator had the right to adjust equities between the parties, it was competent in law for the arbitrator, not merely to grant owelty money but also to award interest payable thereon till payment is made. In the premises, the learned Judge dismissed the application with costs. It is against this order that this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) COMING to the facts of the present case, it is conceded that possession was given to the parties on 1st, February, 1965.