Navin Chawla, J.

IA No. 13008 of 2017

1. This application filed by the judgment debtor was listed on 9th November, 2017, when the arguments were heard in part. The decree holder, who was present on advance notice has also been heard in opposition of the application.

2. The judgment debtor by way of the present application, filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has prayed for a determination as to whether the decree holder is entitled to interest @ 14% per annum (simple interest) or Interest compounded annually.

3. It is further contended that though no averment with respect to the calculation of the interest have been made in the application nor any objection have been filed to the calculation filed by the decree holder on 23rd October, 2017, in terms of order dated 8th September, 2016 passed by this Court in OMP(I)(COMM) 341/2016, the judgment debtor had deposited a sum of Rs. 2 crores with the Registrar of this Court on 4th October, 2016. It is submitted that in terms of Order XXI Rule (1)(4) of the CPC no further interest would, therefore, be payable on this amount of Rs.2 crores and such interest shall cease to run.

4. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor submits that under Section 47 of the CPC, this Court shall have to go into all questions arising between the parties relating to the execution, deposit or satisfaction of the decree including the question whether the arbitration award (now a decree) awards Simple Interest or Compound Interest in favour of the decree holder. He places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 388 and the judgment of Kerela High Court in Abdul Rahiman v. Parameswari Amma and Ors. (MANU/KE/0866/1998) to contend that where the decree is ambiguous, it is the duty of the executing Court to construe the same.

5. In my opinion, the above two judgments have no relevance to the facts of the present case. The Sole Arbitrator had passed an award dated 7th November, 2014 in favour of the decree holder, the operative portion of which reads as under:-

“While in the normal course if the claimants conduct was free of blame and specific performance could not be granted for some valid reason, the claimant would have been at least entitled to the refund of the advance with interest at 18% p.a. However since some blame also attaches to the claimant's conduct the interest should be granted to the claimant on the advance amount at 14% p.a, particularly when the transaction is of real estate. This apart the Claimant would also be entitled to Rs. 251acs as damages and litigation costs. The interest would run from the date of the receipt of the amount of Rs.1.5 crores by the Respondent till the date of payment to the Claimant.”

6. The decree holder filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking clarification/interpretation of the award especially in light of an apparent contradiction between paragraph 11 and paragraph 5 of the findings of the Arbitrator in the award. The Arbitrator vide his order dated 8th December, 2014 clarified the award and passed the following directions/award

“While in the normal course if the claimants conduct was free of blame and specific performance could not be granted for some valid reason, the claimant would have been at least entitled to the refund of the advance with interest at 18% p.a. However since some blame also attaches to the claimant's conduct the compound interest compounded annually should be granted to the claimant on the advance amount at 14% p.a. particularly when the transaction is of real estate. This apart the claimant would also, be entitled to Rs. 2.5 lacs as damages and litigation costs. The interest would run from the date of the receipt of the amount of Rs. 1.5 crores by the Respondent till the date of payment to the Claimant.”

7. It is therefore evident t