Full Judgment
Arvind Kumar, J.
1. Through the instant civil revision, the petitioner has questions the legality of judgment and decree dated 29.5.1985 passed by the learned trial court by dint of which the ex-parte award dated 2.2.1984 passed by the Arbitrator-respondent No. 3 was made as a rule of the Court and that of the learned appellate court dated 12.12.1985 below by virtue of which the findings returned by the trial Court have been affirmed and their appeal has been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant revision are that vide order dated 30.7.1983 the Court appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute having arisen between Vijesh Kumar and Municipality. It appears from record that the Arbitrator in compliance with the directions of the Court passed an award on 2.2.1984, in which the petitioner was exparte, on account of non-representation and awarded an amount of Rs. 25,975.47 in favour of respondent Vijesh Kumar. According to the award if the said amount was not paid within a period of 30 days, then it shall carry interest @ 18% per annum.
3. It further reveals from record that on 13.2.1984 Vijesh Kumar filed an application under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for making the award dated 2.2.1984 as Rule of the Court. The said application, though was contested by the petitioner Municipality by raising the plea that prior to passing the said exparte award, the Arbitrator has not afforded due opportunity of hearing to it, but the learned trial court dismissed their objections and accordingly made the above-said award dated 2.2.1984 as Rule of the Court and further awarded future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization of the amount.
4. The appeal of the petitioner meted with the same before the first appellate court below and their appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress on the point that the proceedings, which are carried out ex-parte and against the principle of natural justice, by the Arbitrator are nothing in the eyes of law, as no due service, as per law, was effected upon the petitioner and moreover the Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings. He has also contended that the interest @ 12%, as awarded by the Courts below, is excessive. Thus, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has protected the impugned judgments and has contended that they are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the petitioner, in the light of their own misconduct and omission to remain away from the proceedings, are not entitled to any relief. Thus, dismissal of instant revision has been prayed.
6. After having analysed the contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, in the light of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not tenable. A bare perusal of the record shows that number of notices were sent by the Arbitrator, who though was appointed by virtue of order dated 30.7.1983 passed by the court in presence of counsel for both the parties, to the petitioner in respect of the proceedings, but for the reasons best known to them, the petitioner preferred to remain away therefrom and no appearance on its behalf was made before the Arbitrator, which ultimately forced the Arbitrator to pass the award dated 2.2.1984. That apart, no material was placed before the courts below, by the petitioner, to substantiate its plea of having not aware of the proceedings pending before the Arbitrator or that they were not served by the Arbitrator. Even the only witness examined by them i.e. OW. 1 Shashi Bhushan, a Municipal Engineer, rendered no help to the ease of the petitioner as he simply showed ignorance about this case and also about the submission of the ex-parte award by the Arbitrator. No evidence, worth of any credence, was brought by the petitioner to prove that the Arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings. Thus, once the petitioner opted to keep away from fee proceedings, it does not lie in the month of the petitioner to say that the proceedings so conducted were against the principles of natural justice. The negligent conduct of the petitioner is of highest magnitude. Normally, the exparte orders are not appreciated and it is always the desire of the courts that the parties should contest the litigation on merits. However, where the process of the court is sought to be misused and exploited with the idea of delay the proceedings and to scuttle the due process of law, then the courts are not to grant indulgence to such a party. Since the petitioner has failed to show his bonafide for absence before the Arbitrator, thus, the courts below rightly declined to interference with the award passed by the Arbitrator.
7. Now coming to the aspect of future interest awarded @ 12% to the respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steeman Ltd. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. : [1997]2SCR770 , has observed that the objector has no right to challenge the award on the ground that the interest has been awarded wrongly and illegally because the objection in respect of interest does not come within the ambit of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.
8. In the case of State of Orissa v. B.N. Agarwalla : [1997]1SCR704 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Arbitrator has discretion to award the interest to pre-reference period in matter in which the case of action accrued after the operation of Interest Act, 1978. It has further been held that the Arbitrator has discretion to award the interest pendente lite with future interest.
In the case, of T.P. George v. State of Kerala : AIR 2001 SC816 , wherein the interest allowed from the date of award was under challenge and it was held that the Arbitrator can award interest on all four stages i.e. pre-reference stage, present and future interest from the date of award and from the date of decision till its realisation.
9. In the instant case, the Arbitrator has imposed interest @ 18% per annum only in the event if the petitioner did hot make the payment within 30 days from the date of award. There has been non compliance of the order of Arbitrator and the future interest @ 12% per annum was awarded by the Courts below, is reasonable and needs no interference.
10. In view of this, there is no scope to interfere with the award and to differ with the concurrent view recorded by the Courts below. The revision is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.