2025:JHHC:11342 1 C.M.P. No. 879 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- C.M.P. No. 879 of 2022 ---- M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its HOD (Legal) namely, Ved Prakash, aged about 56 years, son of late Radhe Krishna Prasad, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koylanagar, P.S.Koylanagar, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand …… …. … Petitioner(s)/Judgment Debtor -- Versus -- M/s Annapurna Construction, through its Partner, having its office J.C. Mallik Road, Hirapur, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, Town and District Dhanbad, Jharkhand …… ….. ……Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For the Opposite Party(s) : Mr. P.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, Advocate ---- 20/15.04.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent/Opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) -II, Dhanbad in Execution Case No.29 of 2014. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the sole opposite party have entered into a contract for construction of 140 numbers of temporary hutments and the estimated cost of which was to the tune of Rs.49,45,447.81 and thereafter a formal work order was issued to the opposite party and in terms of the agreement, the entire work was to be completed within four months. The formal contract was entered into for the aforesaid work between the parties which was also containing the arbitration clause. The said contract was not completed within time and request was made for extension of time and that was also granted by the petitioner and the dispute has further arose between the parties and for that the arbitration 2025:JHHC:11342 2 C.M.P. No. 879 of 2022 clause has been invoked and the opposite party has raised the claim of Rs.55,01,640.66 and the petitioner herein has also raised counter claim of Rs.28,47,860.57. The learned Arbitrator has passed the Award on 13.07.1994 to the tune of Rs.18,97,729.37 with interest @ 18 % per annum in favour of the opposite party, however, the counter claim of the petitioner herein has been rejected by learned Arbitrator which was challenged before the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad in Title (Arbitration) Suit No.109 of 1994 for being made a rule of the Court in terms of section 14 of Arbitration Act, 1940. In the said proceeding, the petitioner has filed objection under section 15, 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which was rejected by the order dated 03.06.1995 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge)-IV, Dhanbad in Title (Arbitration) Suit No.109 of 1994. The opposite party has filed Execution Case No.6 of 1995 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-IV, Dhanbad which is still pending. She further submits that against the order dated 03.06.1995 passed in Title (Arbitration) Suit No.109 of 1994 the petitioner has preferred M.A. No.169 of 1995(R) and in the said case, Civil Revision has also been preferred before the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi which was registered as Civil Revision No.12 of 1996(R) and the M.A. No.169 of 1995(R) and Civil Revision No.12 of 1996(R) were heard together and the said civil revision was allowed by the judgment dated 29.04.1997 whereas the aforesaid appeal was disposed of. The civil revision was filed for interest against the first Award which was allowed. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment passed by the High Court the petitioner herein has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5647-48 of 1997. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by the judgment dated 29.08.2003 disposed of observing therein as under: “We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly keeping in view the fact that the matter relates to pure 2025:JHHC:11342 3 C.M.P. No. 879 of 2022 interpretation of document, which gives rise to question of law and instead and in place of remitting the matter to the named arbitrator, we would direct that the disputes in relation to claim item nos.3,7 and 11 be referred to Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.N. Prasad, a retired Judge of the Jharkhand High Court on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties. The learned arbitrator is requested to consider the desirability of making his award as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the fact that the mater has been pending for a long time. These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent. No costs.” 5. She submits that after remand by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the dispute with regard to claim nos. 3, 7 and 11 was reconsidered by Mr. Justice D.N. Prasad, retired and by the Award dated 02.09.2005 has allowed interest at the rate of 12 % per annum over the awarded amount in claim nos.7 and 11 only till the date of payment to the claimant/respondent-Opposite party. She submits that the said Award was challenged before the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Dhanbad in Title (Arbitration) Suit No.109 of 1994 which was dismissed by the judgment dated 13.05.2010 and the objection filed by the petitioner against the Award dated 02.09.2005 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator has been rejected and the said Award was made rule of the Court directing the Office to prepare decree accordingly and the decree was signed on 22.5.2010. She submits that the said judgment dated 13.05.2010 was challenged in Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2010 which was dismissed by the order dated 09.12.2019. The petitioner has again moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the Award dated 09.12.2019 passed in Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2010 which was dismissed by order dated 12.2.2022 and thereafter there is Execution Case No.29 of 2014. She submits that the dispute is there with regard to interest and there is Execution Case No.29 of 2014. She submits that the dispute is with regard to interest in view of second Award with regard to item nos.7 and 11. She submits that in the second Award only two items have been allowed being item nos.7 and 11 with interest @ 12 % per annum over the awarded amount till the date of payment. She submits that from which date the interest will be payable that is not there in the award and in view of 2025:JHHC:11342 4 C.M.P. No. 879 of 2022 that the sole opposite party is only entitled for interest from the date of said Award, i.e., 02.09.2005. She submits that however the learned executing court has interpreted the same and directed to pay the interest with effect from the year 1988 when the first Award was drawn. She submits that the learned executing court has wrongly interpreted the second Award and directed to pay the interest with effect from 1988 on item nos.7 and 11 also. She submits that in view of that the order of executing court is not correct. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole Opposite party submits that the learned Arbitrator after remand by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already granted the interest at the rate of 12 % per annum which was challenged before the High Court and the High Court has dismissed the same and against that the SLP has been preferred which has further been dismissed. He submits that in light of the dismissal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the grounds taken by the petitioner herein deemed to be there and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not entertained the same and in view of that the learned executing court has rightly passed the said order. 7. It is an admitted position that the dispute arose and pursuant to that arbitration clause has been invoked. The learned first Arbitrator has passed the Award which has been made a rule of the Court in light of section 14 by the learned court and the interest part has been challenged by the sole respondent in Civil Revision and the M.A was preferred against the said Award by the petitioner herein and the M.A and the Civil Revision have been disposed by the Court and the Civil Revision was allowed by the High Court with regard to the interest and the M.A has been disposed of. Against that, the petitioner herein has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing remanded the matter to decide the issue nos.3,7 and 11 and pursuant to that, the learned Arbitrator has decided the same and claim no.3 was not allowed, however, the item nos.7 and 11 was allowed and the interest 2025:JHHC:11342 5 C.M.P. No. 879 of 2022 @ 12 % per annum over the awarded amount. However, in the Award it is specifically not disclosed as to from what date the interest will be payable. Interest is already granted by the first Award which was the subject matter in M.A and Civil Revision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The second Award has further been challenged in Arbitration appeal No.9 of 2010 which has been dismissed by the High Court by the judgment dated 09.12.2019 and the High Court has taken note of the fact that the loss and profit aspect has been taken care of in the Award and dismissed the said Arbitration Appeal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further dismissed the same challenge in S.L.P. being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2361 of 2021. Thus, the grounds taken by the petitioner herein are deemed to be there which has been affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This basic consideration is as valid for the period the dispute is pending before the arbitrator as it is for the period prior to the arbitrator entering upon the reference. Further, the contract did not prohibit the Award of interest with respect to delayed payment. 8. In view of above, considering that the matter has been finally settled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no interference is required in the impugned order dated 20.09.2022. The learned executing court has only interpreted the Award and this can be done by the learned executing court and there is no illegality in the same. 9. As such, C.M.P. No.879 of 2022 is dismissed. 10. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,A.F.R.