VIDYA RATTAN Vs. MARKET COMMITTEE, NABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. While making the award rule of the Court the learned Sub Judge Ist Class Nabha vide judgment and decree dated 25th February, 1986 granted interest on the amount awarded by the arbitrator from the date of the filing of suit till the actual realisation of the amount by the appellant. Learned Additional District Judge in appeal has rightly held that the trial Court had jurisdiction to award future interest from the date of the decree only under Section 29.of the Arbitration Act; 1940. There is no provision in the Arbitration Act which vests powers with Court after the award of arbitrator to grant interest from a date antecedent to the date of reference to the arbitrator and till, the date of the decree. So the Judgment and decree of the Learned Additional District Judge on this account is unexceptionable.

(2.) However, the other grievance made by the learned counsel for the as be appellant appears to be valid, filed in Court before fore passing a decree in accordance with the law the learned trial Court required the appellant to pay court fee on the amount so awarded which he complied with and the decree was granted with costs. The learned Additional District Judge has observed and rightly so that while making the award a rule of the Court, it was not necessary for the learned trial Court to require, the appellant to pay court fee on the decretal amount be that as it, may, it was not ground for depriving the appellant of the costs of the suit actually incurred by him on the direction of the trial Court. By doing so the learned Additional District Judge has deprived the appellant of the amount actually paid by him for securing the decree without recording any other reason to deny this relief to the appellant.

(3.) I therefore, partly set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge with proportionate costs and hold that the appellant is entitled to the costs of the suit as assessed by the learned trial Court.