H.P.HOUSING & URBAN DEVT.AUTH.& ANR versus RANJIT SINGH RANA

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 12-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 427 
H.P.HOUSING & URBAN DEVT.AUTH.& ANR 
v. 
RANJIT SINGH RANA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2751 of2012). 
MARCH 12, 2012. 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996: 
s.31(7)(b) - Liability to pay interest for the post-award c 
period - Held: The deposit of the award amount into the court 
is nothing but a payment to the credit of the decree-holder -
Once the award amount was deposited into the court on a 
particular date, the liability of post-award interest would cease 
from that date. 
o 
During the pendency of the objections uls 34(3) of 
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the 
award dated 14.2.2001, the appellants on 24.5.2001, 
deposited before the Hig~ Court the entire amount due 
under the award. The objections were rejected and the 
E 
appellant filed an intra-court appeal. While the appeal was 
still pending, the respondent, on 12.8.2008, filed an 
execution petition. The High Court held that the 
respondent was entitled to post award interest @18% p.a. 
from the date of the award till the date of the actual 
F 
payment. 
In the instant appeal, the question for consideration 
before the Court was: whether the deposit of the entire 
award amount by the appellants on 24.5.2001 into the 
G 
High Court amounted to payment to the respondent and 
the appellants' liability to pay interest@ 18% p.a. from the 
date of the award ceased from that date. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
427 
H 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. The parties are ad idem that the arbitrator 
has not exercised any discretion in the matter pertaining 
to the interest for the post-award period. Obviously, in 
absence thereof, by virtue of s. 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration 
and Conciliation Act, 1996 the award would carry interest 
B @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till the date of 
payment. [para 9] [431-C-F] 
State of Haryana and others vs. S.L. Arora and Company 
2010 (2) SCR 297 = (2010) 3 sec 690 - relied on. 
C 
2.1 The word 'payment' is not defined in the Act. It 
may have different meaning in different context but in the 
context of s. 31(7)(b) of the Act, it means extinguishment 
of liability arising under the award. It signifies satisfaction 
of the award. The deposit of the award amount into the 
D court is nothing but a payment to the credit of the decree-
h o Ider. In this view, once the award amount was 
deposited by the appellants before the High Court on 
24.5.2001, the liability of post-award interest from 
24.5.2001 ceased. The High Court, thus, was not right in 
E directing the appellants to pay interest @ 18% p.a. 
beyond 24.5. 2001. [para 10-11] [431-G-H; 432-B-C] 
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Tenth Edition-
revised); Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International 
Edition) Volume two; The Law Laxicon, 2nd Edition reprint by 
F P. Ramanatha Aiyar, inter alia - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (2) SCR 297 
relied on 
para 8 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2"151 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2009 of the High 
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CMP No. 678 of 2008 
H in Execution Petition No. 6 of 2008. 
H.P.HOUSING & URBAN DEVT.AUTH.& ANR v. 
RANJIT SINGH RANA 
1 
Y. Prabhakara Rao for the Appellants. 
Binu Tamta, Dhrur Tamta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
429 
2. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties being 
agreement No. 11 of 1989-90 concerning construction of 
residential complex at Shimla, certain disputes arose. As per 
A 
B 
the terms of the contract, the Arbitrator was appointed to 
C 
adjudicate the claims of the respondent and counter-claims of 
the appellants. On August 12, 1998, the Arbitrator passed the 
award. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed objections under 
Section 34(3) of the Arbitrator and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for 
short "the Act"). The objections were accepted by the High 
0 
Court to the extent that the reasons were not given by the 
Arbitrator and, accordingly, the matter was sent back to the 
Arbitrator for giving reasons in support of the award. 
3. After remand, tile Arbitrator considered the matter and 
passed the award on February 14, 2001. The appellants filed 
E 
objections against the award dated February 14, 2001. They 
also deposited the entire amount due under the award before 
the High Court on May 24, 2001. The objections filed by the 
appellants were

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.