Tara Singh v. The Lakhimpur Finvest Company Ltd. THRU. DIRECTOR AND ORS.
ARPL/4/2023 · 2025-04-02
Abdul Moin
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 120383 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 120383 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18517 Court No. - 5 Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 4 of 2023 Appellant :- Tara Singh Respondent :- The Lakhimpur Finvest Company Ltd. Thru. Director And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Mohan Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Raj Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard Shri Shyam Mohan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms Radhika Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Rishabh Raj, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. It has been pointed out that respondents no. 3 and 4 are guarantors. 3. Notice had been issued to all the respondents and has also been served on the respondents no. 2 and 3 however no objections has been filed by them. 4. Notice of respondent no. 4 is not sufficient. 5. However, considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, no occasion arises for fresh notice to be issued to respondent no. 4, guarantor. 6. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the appeal is being finally decided. 7. The instant appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2022 whereby the application filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has been rejected. Also under challenge is the arbitral award dated 12.06.2014 whereby the learned arbitrator has awarded an amount of Rs 1,56,271/- in favour of the respondent no. 1 to be deposited within one month failing which the amount would attract interest of 24% per annum. 8. Various grounds have been urged by learned counsel for the appellant while raising a challenge to the order impugned. 9. This Court was of the view that the parties may arise at a consensus amongst themselves with regard to the amount in dispute. 10. Today, learned counsels for the parties state that the rate of
interest that has been awarded by the arbitrator may be modified to 10% per annum simple interest payable with effect from the date of award till the date of actual payment. 11. Considering the aforesaid consensus amongst the parties, the arbitration appeal is partly allowed. The arbitral award dated 12.06.2014 is modified.
The rate of interest awarded in the order dated 12.06.2014 is modified to read as 10% per annum simple interest with effect from the date of award i.e.
12.06.2014. 12. The parties agree that the amount as modified by this Court would be deposited by the appellant before the execution court within 30 days from today. 13. Let the trial court record be returned. 14. It is provided that in case the amount is not deposited within a period of 30 days then the appellant would not be entitled for the benefit of this order and it would be open for the respondents to have the order executed in accordance with law. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 J. K. Dinkar Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench