[2025:RJ-JP:38325-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1769/2021 Javed Khan Son of Jiyauddin, Resident of Kota Road, Village Suket, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota Rajasthan. ----Objector/Appellant Versus Shree Ram Transport Finance Limited, GEMS Enclave, Kalgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Through Authorized Officer. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemang Kumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 18/09/2025 1. The present appeal raises objections under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘Arbitration Act’ for short), relating to the award dated 22.07.2014, which was affirmed and the objections raised under Section 34 of Arbitration Act were rejected by the learned Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II vide its order dated 26.08.2021. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the arbitral award suffers from illegality and the order passed is against public policy, as interest upon interest has been awarded, which would go against the provisions of Section 3(3)(c) of the Interest Act, 1978, where the Act specifically bars any person to claim interest upon interest while passing of the award. 3. We have considered the submissions. [2025:RJ-JP:38325-DB] (2 of 3) [CMA-1769/2021] 4. We find that the award passed by the arbitrator dated 22.07.2014, takes into its consideration the claim set up on 11.06.2014 by the Company pointing out that installments were directed to be paid to the respondent (present appellant) and when the same were not paid, the Company issued a notice where after filed the proceedings under the Arbitration Act. The amount due as per the claim was Rs.8,18,485/- which accrued on account of the regular installments not having been paid by the appellant. 5. Having considered all the facts, the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.8,18,485/- as the claimed amount and also imposed interest till the date of recovery @18%. The said award was challenged by the appellant before the learned Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, also vide order dated 26.08.2021, rejected the objections raised and concluded that the award was liable to be implemented. 6. The appellant is again in appeal before us with the limited submissions that the claim raised by the respondent could not be adjudicated under the Arbitration Act on account of its limited scope. However, the contentions raised by the appellant in the present appeal are merely repeated and the same contentions as raised before the concerned Commercial Court are being sought to be raised by a different approach. 7. We have also noticed that scope of Section 37 of Arbitration Act is very limited and would only be available where there is gross perversity in the award. 8. We are of the firm view that so far as the Arbitrator is concerned, he has the right to award interest on the claimed amount. The law in this regard is well settled. [2025:RJ-JP:38325-DB] (3 of 3) [CMA-1769/2021] 9. No interference is, therefore, warranted to the award passed. The amount shall be recovered in accordance with law, as against the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AMIT/67