The deposit of the awarded amount in the court does not amount to payment in satisfaction of the decree/award unless it is an unconditional payment by judgment debtors.

1. This Ex. Petition has been filed by the decree holder seeking execution of order and judgment dated July 20, 2012 passed in OMP 183/2003.

2. The brief facts are, inter se disputes between the parties were adjudicated by the sole Arbitrator in terms of award dated December 31, 2002 whereby the learned Arbitrator has awarded an amount of Rs.32,17,871.50/- with future interest at 18% per annum on the awarded amount. The objections to the said award u/s 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act were rejected by the Single Judge of this Court vide its order dated July 20, 2012 in OMP 183/2003. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the OMP 183/2003, was of the view that as regards any further amount that may be payable to the petitioner it would be open to petitioner to file an execution petition in accordance with law including the claim with regard to bank charges and deferential interest.

3. It may be noted here, during the pendency of the aforesaid OMP, 183/2003, this court had granted permission to the petitioner in the OMP i.e. the Judgment Debtor herein to deposit the awarded amount in the court within two weeks. On such deposit the petitioner herein was given permission to withdraw the same on furnishing appropriate bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court with undertaking that in case the petition u/s 34 of the Act is allowed then he entire amount received by the decree holder along with interest shall be deposited back in the Court. It was also directed that the bank guarantee be kept alive until the disposal of the petition.

4. On September 24, 2013 when this petition was listed this Court had passed the following order:

“1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the Decree Holder (DH) says that there were three issues raised in the captioned petition. These being:

(i) payment of interest on interest for the period 08.05.2004 to 12.02.2013;

(ii) payment of interest for the period, the format in which the bank guarantee had to be furnished, was not finalized – the period being: ten (10) months and twenty three (23) days; and

(iii) payment of bank charges and interest for keeping the bank guarantee alive.

2. In so far as the first two aspects are concerned, Mr. Kang says that he does not wish to press the same and the same are, accordingly, given up.

2.1 In so far as the last aspect is concerned, Mr. Kang says that he would require some time to examine the issue as to whether this court, in a case of conditional withdrawal of the decretal amount deposited by the judgment debtor in the course of execution of an award/decree, could direct payment of bank charges and interest paid for the purpose of keeping the bank guarantee alive.”

5. From the above it is clear that the only aspect which requires consideration of this Court in this petition is whether the petitioner in these proceedings is entitle to the payment of bank charges and interest for keeping the bank guarantee alive.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to page 9 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the affidavit by way of calculation filed by respondent No. 2. According to him, between the period May 8, 2004 till Feb, 2013 the bank guarantee furnished for the amount withdrawn by the decree holder from this Court was renewed/extended on eight occasions. He would state on every occasion the petitioner had to incur an expense of Rs.1,12,625/-. According to him, the total amount on all the eight occasions was Rs. 10,13,620/- and the petitioner is entitled to the amount. The judgment debtors in their reply have disputed the claim of the petitioner for this amount.

7. Mr. T.P.S. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the submissions made in the petition as well as in the reply affidavit. According to him even though the learned Arbitrator has not awarded this amount but this amount has accrued to petitioner in view of subsequent developments taken place during the pendency of the O