STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this misc. appeal under Sec. 39 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (for short "the Act") challenging the judgement and decree dt. 16-7-1996 passed by the District Judge Jhalawar, whereby deciding objections of the State to the application of the respondent M/s Navabharat Construction Co. (for short "the Company") of claiming compound interest, the learned District Judge Jhalawar awarded simple interest @ 15% p.a. on the original award of Rs. 29,96,060/- from the date 16-7-1996 of its order till realization and further ordered to pass a decree entitling the respondent Company to recover whatever its claim granted under Award dt. 29-5-1995 from the State and also make Award amount a part of the decree. The decree passed is reproduced as under :-

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 30-5-1995 Moolchand Luharia partner of the respondent Company submitted his application praying therein for grant of relief stated in para 8 and stating that claim Nos. 1 to 39 except No.3 were allowed to the extent of Rs. 29,96,060/- in favour of Company by Umpire Shri V. K. Gupta under his Award dt. 29-5-1995 under which F.D.R. worth Rs. 2,84,000/- was awarded to be released by the State, with interest granted under the Award, besides expenses to a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. In the application dt. 30-5-1995 the respondent Company claimed compound interest @ 18% p.a. instead of simple interest allowed under the Award dt. 29-5-1995, and also claimed interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 29-5-1995 till payment. Against application dt. 30-5-1995 of the Company, the State raised objections besides submitted application u/Ss. 30 and 33 of the Act on 3-7-1995 praying therein for setting aside the Award (sic) on 9-11-1995 the respondent Company also filed its reply to the application of (sic) of the Act. Before the District Judge, both the parties jointly did not press to adduce any evidence, and therefore the learned District Judge heard both the parties and on the basis of their respective pleadings, at joint request, went on to decide the matter at issue. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge by his order and decree dt. 16-7-1996 allowed simple interest @ 15% p.a. on the total Award amount and further ordered to make the impugned Award dt. 29-5-1995 as part of the decree itself, as detailed above. Hence, this misc. appeal.

(3.) On the first date 22-11-1996. Shri R. P. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent appeared and case was adjourned to 26-11-1996 for admission. On 26-11-1996, partner Shri M. C. Luharia of respondent, this Court summoned the record. Whereafter arguments were heard and order was reserved on 20-1-1997 by another bench of this Court. However, on 28-3-1997 the respondent Company filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC. On 4-4-1997 another bench of this Court released the case from part heard and ordered to list the case before regular bench. Whereupon, on 4-7-1997 the Registry has pointed out defects inter alia that cross objection has been filed belatedly and is not within time and moreover Courtfee is not sufficient. It has also been pointed fee is not sufficient. It has also been pointed out that provision of law has not mentioned and that its copy has also not been given to the counsel for the appellant. Thereafter, this appeal was admitted on 8-7-1997 after hearing both the parties. However, the case was especially assigned to this bench by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Hence, this appeal came up for final hearing.