IMPORTANT POINT
Where arbitrators awarded interest until payment future interest can be claimed on a decree in terms of the award. But where award was giving interest upto date of decree (as in present case), execution for future interest cannot be granted.

JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-Leave granted.

2. An agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent by which the respondents undertook the construction of residential flats. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. After the completion of the work, disputes arose between the parties. The disputes were referred to a panel of three arbitrators under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (referred to as the Act). By an award made on 31st December 1987 the arbitrators directed the appellant to pay the respondents various amounts towards the several heads of claim put forward by the respondents. The arbitrators also awarded interest in respect of certain of the respondents claims. As the dispute in this appeal centers around the right of the respondent to claim interest, the relevant portion of the award in this context is extracted (wherein the appellant herein is referred to as the respondent and the respondent herein as the claimant ) :

"Respondent to pay claimant interest @ 9% from 29.5.80.

Respondent to pay claimant interest at 10% from 1.2.1985 on claims III to IX and on Claim XII only".

3. The award was filed in the local Court which issued notice under Section 14(1) of the Act, to the appellant. The appellant filed an application challenging the award on several grounds, one of the grounds being that the award of interest pendente lite was illegal. The respondents also filed an application in which the first prayer was to pass a decree in terms of the award. The second prayer was to :

"Grant interest at 18% per annum on the amounts due under the decree to be so passed from the date of decree till date of payment or realization, in accordance with Section 29 of the Arbitration Act."

4. Both the applications were heard and disposed of by a common judgment on 26th March 1990 by which the appellant s application was dismissed and the respondents application was allowed and a decree in terms of the award was granted.

5. Soon after this an application was made under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondents before the court praying for review of the order dated 26th March 1990. According to the respondents application, by an "accidental slip, omission or oversight" the Court while allowing the respondents application "had not dealt with and passed any order on Prayer No. 2 therein for the grant of future interest at 18% per annum on the amounts due under the decree from the date of decree till date of payment or realisation". It was further stated that unless the Court reviewed the order dated 26th March, 1990 and allowed the prayer for future interest to the respondents on the amounts due under the decree from the date of decree till the date of payment or realisation, serious prejudice and hardship would be caused to the respondents.

6. The application was dismissed by the Court on 29th October 1990. It was held on a construction of the order dated 26th March 1990 that it was not a case of any "omission or slip" but that the Court had chosen not to grant any interest to the respondents on the decretal amount. The respondents did not challenge this order nor did they prefer any appeal from the decree or order dated 26th March 1990.

7. However, on 10th December 1990, the appellant preferred an appeal from the order dated 26th March 1990 before the High Court. The appeal was allowed to the future interest at 18% per annum on the amounts due under the decree from the date of decree till date of payment or realisation". It was further stated that unless the Court reviewed the order dated 26th March, 1990 and allowed the prayer for future interest to the respondents on the amounts due under the decree from the date of decree till the date of payment or realisation, serious prejudice and hardship would be caused to the respondents.

8. In execution of the decree, the respondents claimed interest on the decretal amount. The Executing Court held that that the question whether the respondents were